BN66 - Time to fight back!!!

[malvolio]

Originally Posted by SantaClaus

The big question I have is whether they can force payment from us before the Judicial Review and court battle in the European Court of Human Rights.

Of course they can. As of now, the tax is legally due. If the law is repealed or otherwise rescoped, you'll get any overpayment back.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Here is an overview:

http://www.hmrc.eu/manuals/emmanual/em1951.htm

I suspect MontP will get us to appeal and request a postponement of payment, although HMRC will probably just take it straight to the Commissioners to get it upheld. See here:

http://www.hmrc.eu/manuals/emmanual/EM1955.htm

I think Mr B may have been reading this thread. Here are some of the reasons for making a Jeopardy Ammendment.

http://www.hmrc.eu/manuals/emmanual/EM1953.htm

In particular, you should consider making an amendment where you discover or suspect that

• the taxpayer intends to dispose of assets
• the taxpayer intends to become non-resident
• the taxpayer intends to apply for bankruptcy or the company intends to go into liquidation
• an individual may be about to go to prison.

If you are planning any of the above, then you better get your skates on.

[smalldog]

Originally Posted by BrilloPad

Just heard from mp - obviously they have been contacted by loads of people! mp are in discussion with tax counsel - hope for formal response tomorrow!

DONT PANIC!!! :-)

Brillo, so does that mean we will know if we have a fighting chance tomorrow? If they think we have a good chance HMRC can send me all the F**ing bills they want and stick em where the sun dont shine! :-)

[BrilloPad]

Originally Posted by smalldog

Brillo, so does that mean we will know if we have a fighting chance tomorrow? If they think we have a good chance HMRC can send me all the F**ing bills they want and stick em where the sun dont shine! :-)

I reckon HMRC on dodgy ground. More bully boy tactics. What comes around goes around.

[smalldog]

I think they are too...lets see....if they were too scared to go to court in the first place surely they will be scared to go again even if it is now law, they are there to be challenged and validated, as per the commons transcript debates point out

[max]

Originally Posted by normalbloke

That applies to Companies and their directors - no mention of individual tax payers. Perhaps you'd be good enough to explain to me how it can be applied to individuals, or point me to the correct link.

Dont you read pages before pointing people at them?

My point is rather than getting spoon fed like a 2 year old...why don't you get off your couch and do some of your own research. Shurly the amount of money invovled makes it worth at least some effort on your part.

[ASB]

Originally Posted by smalldog

I think they are too...lets see....if they were too scared to go to court in the first place surely they will be scared to go again even if it is now law, they are there to be challenged and validated, as per the commons transcript debates point out

Ok, lets assume they were 2 scared to go to court. This means no asessment issued. Now the situation is completely different. They issue the asessment and you have 2 choices. Appeal it, or accept it.

Thus now the pendulum has turned, you appeal it then you need to get the commissioners hearing, you need to win (pretty much the same as before except you are being forced down that road).

Don;t appeal it, then you have accepted it, you don't pay it. It's simply off to court to argue about why you haven't paid a bill you have agreed to. The validity or otherwise of the tax won't come into it.

[normalbloke]

Originally Posted by max

My point is rather than getting spoon fed like a 2 year old...why don't you get off your couch and do some of your own research. Shurly the amount of money invovled makes it worth at least some effort on your part.

I agree, but nothing lost by asking if anyone in the same boat has met this before..isnt this one reason why there are Forums? No point in re-inventing the wheel if I dont have to. It's not a straightforward explanation as DR and ASB have pointed out.

And don't call me Shurly...

[normalbloke]

Originally Posted by ASB

....Thus now the pendulum has turned, you appeal it then you need to get the commissioners hearing, you need to win (pretty much the same as before except you are being forced down that road).....

I don't think it is the same. Now the Commissioners will be using the newly worded, updated law, to judge appeals, not the law as it was worded before BN66. Or am I misreading things? (I hope I am). MP always wanted to go down the Commissioners/litigation road, so I don't think HMRC will force them down it now on the basis of the 'old' law.

I presume if a JR is taking place on the validity of the new law, then that's a different issue and appeals will be valid and payment not due until the end of the JR/ECHR . Thats why HMRC are playing the jeopardy card....??

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Now the Commissioners will be using the newly worded, updated law, to judge appeals, not the law as it was worded before BN66.

It sounds like the Revenue's tactic now is to force us in to paying on account, irrespective of any JR/ECHR challenge. If we appeal against the Jeopardy Ammendment and request a postponement of payment, they will immediately take this to the Commissioners to uphold it. Given the law as it now stands, I'm not sure how MontP can stop this but I guess we will find out in the next couple of days.

If we have to pay on account, HMRC will be happy to sit back and let the legal process drag on for years. Once they have got the money, can you ever see them handing it back?