BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[nuffsaid]

Although this is the HMRC commitment:

"We aim to handle your affairs promptly and accurately so that you receive or pay
only the right amount due."

And that, I think might be an avenue to explore. No reasonable person would say that
seven years is anything like prompt.

They also use the word "accurately", both of which are open to interpretation.
And then they crown it with "we aim", so basically they can do what they want.

They might as well have used the words "fair" and "proportionate" too.
I never realised how vague and interpretative the English language is until this fiasco started.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

What really gets me about HMRC

(and I hope their FOI Team are reading this)

is that they utterly resent what I'm doing. "Hate" is probably not too strong a word for their feelings towards me. I think they assume I'm just playing games and being deliberately bloody minded.

Well I'm not. I've had people confide in me that they have contemplated ending their life, so this is deadly serious.

My only goal with the FOI requests etc. is to try and get at the truth. Because of their underhand evasive tactics and total lack of candour, they have forced me to become a pain in the arse.

Based on everything I've learned over the past 2 years, this is what I believe to be true:

HMRC obtained a number of legal opinions on the scheme. The legal advice they received stated that they had little or no prospect of winning in the courts, and the only course of action open to them was to introduce retrospective legislation.

Now, if HMRC really wanted to shut me up why don't they waive their rights and prove that this was not the real motive behind s.58?

Until they come clean, they are not going to get me off their backs.

PS.

What I'm planning to do next is going to seriously piss them off but I make no apologies for this because they've brought it on themselves. This is just a job to them, and I'm looking out for people whose lives will be ruined.

[smalldog]

(and I hope their FOI Team are reading this)

is that they utterly resent what I'm doing. "Hate" is probably not too strong a word for their feelings towards me. I think they assume I'm just playing games and being deliberately bloody minded.

Well I'm not. I've had people confide in me that they have contemplated ending their life, so this is deadly serious.

My only goal with the FOI requests etc. is to try and get at the truth. Because of their underhand evasive tactics and total lack of candour, they have forced me to become a pain in the arse.

Based on everything I've learned over the past 2 years, this is what I believe to be true:



Now, if HMRC really wanted to shut me up why don't they waive their rights and prove that this was not the real motive behind s.58?

Until they come clean, they are not going to get me off their backs.

PS.

What I'm planning to do next is going to seriously piss them off but I make no apologies for this because they've brought it on themselves. This is just a job to them, and I'm looking out for people whose lives will be ruined.

here here Mr DR, back you 100%! and if they need some perspective, there was programme on TV last night, "Homes From Hell" and they had a couple on who bought a flat and split after a year as the problems with the property caused so much stress. So if something like that can end a relationship, imagine what living in a state of uncertain bankruptcy and homelessness can do to a family for years on end.

They probably haven't even given it a thought, but I can tell you its led to my divorce and Im sure Im not the only one....so they already have blood on their hands and thank god there were no children involved, I shudder to think what day to day impact this is having on some families..

[Sausage Surprise]

A very good friend of mine has left his partner and kids to go and work in the far east to avoid this. The missus and kids will follow next year when the eldest finishes the exams presuming the relationship copes with the enforced long term absence.

[Slobbo]

here here Mr DR, back you 100%! and if they need some perspective, there was programme on TV last night, "Homes From Hell" and they had a couple on who bought a flat and split after a year as the problems with the property caused so much stress. So if something like that can end a relationship, imagine what living in a state of uncertain bankruptcy and homelessness can do to a family for years on end.

They probably haven't even given it a thought, but I can tell you its led to my divorce and Im sure Im not the only one....so they already have blood on their hands and thank god there were no children involved, I shudder to think what day to day impact this is having on some families..

I am by nature an optimist and an extrovert. I worry about this but figure I can only do so much to influence what is going to happen. I do what I can to prepare for a worse case outcome and will deal with whatever comes along. What I try not to do is let the worry keep me down. My wife on the other hand is the opposite and worries about this constantly. It is mental torture and has a pronounced negative affect on both of our lives. I worry more about her than I do about BN66. I often feel that I have let her down by signing up for the scheme but I had little other choice. The uncertainty of IR35 (at the time) or something that was fully disclosed, vetted, and most importantly, knew what my liability would be (well at the time I thought I did). No brainer really.

My wife is the best and my rock and I feel lucky to have her. The revenue have a lot to answer for in this. I am not a tax dodger. Lets face it they get it all in the end anyway, one way or another. I spend the money here and employ tradesmen, buy the petrol they tax at ridicules levels. Just about every penny I earn gets ploughed back into the economy in some form. They tax everything so they get it one way or another.

I believe everyone should pay their fair share of tax but at roughly 61% tax at the top end with none of the benefits of employment under IR35 is not fair in the least. Hopefully this new government will come up with something that is acceptable to all of us and hopefully they will end this torture quickly.

Bet that if they end up putting my family in the street I won't see £20k a year like some of the benefit families I've read about. Let them fix that first and stop harassing the people that actually make the wheels turn.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

"Clarification"

this is the single best news I have seen since the start of this nightmare. Clearly hope it will be resolved before I gets to this stage, but good to know that if everything else fails not going to lose the family home.

Buzby, the statement about the family home is correct in terms of the Distraint Office calling on you. They are not empowered to take your home as the links confirm. Don't let them in is the simple answer regarding CN's on BN66. Santa is quite right to ensure that they don't have any opportunity to gain unforced entry (that includes ensuring windows are not left open).

The issue about property is not extended to the courts process and for example bankruptcy proceedings (but the law dictates 1 year to take the family home if it comes to that). My post was ONLY about possible actions from the Distraint Office, not the wider picture. Given that the DO has "gone after" a number of folks on this, then it is important to know what the DO can do legally and what they cannot - hence the reference to taking your home. As DR points out, this is not the same as potential court supported actions. The latter *should* only be relevant after the legal process ends if it goes in HMRC's favour (and I have good reason to think it will not). I was aiming to clarify the difference between what the Distraint Office can do by law versus what the legal process currently underway means. The DO cannot take your house - period.

So, and only in repsect to the Distraint Office, contact MontP and don't let anyone from the Distraint Office into your property in connection with this matter. I have copies of the CN's which I would be more than happy to wave in their face if they came around for tea. The DO is not an issue unless you let them in - so DON'T.

Legal footnote (for friends in HMRC DO) - This applies specifically in relation to SA tax demands raised via HMRC Compliance Office, under appeal and engaged through the courts in connection with BN66 and the stated position on suspended actions from HMRC Counsel. It does not relate to your disjointed, paralysed and "fair free" computer systems where not only does the left hand not know what the right hand is doing, but neither are even aware of the existence of the other. Please also consult the default 6 Project Phases for these "disconnects" within your organisation:

Enthusiasm
Disillusionment
Panic
Search for Guilty
Punishment of the innocent
Praise and Honour for the non-participants.

[BolshieBastard]

HMRC are tulip.

When they sent me my closure notices, they couldnt even get my name on the CN correct. Not mispelt or anything like that, but a COMPLETELY different name!

How ******* incompetent are you lot!?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Court of Appeal Date

Duration

The hearing is scheduled to last 3 days.

Dates

It will either be:

Tue/Wed/Thu, 2nd-4th November 2010

OR

Wed/Thu/Fri, 3rd-5th November 2010

This will be confirmed on Monday 1st November.

Running Order

PwC's case will be heard first, then Montpelier's.

Judges

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE HIGH COURT
LORD JUSTICE HUGHES
LORD JUSTICE AIKENS

[SantaClaus]

HMRC are tulip.

When they sent me my closure notices, they couldnt even get my name on the CN correct. Not mispelt or anything like that, but a COMPLETELY different name!

How ******* incompetent are you lot!?

Mine were scribbled in pencil with crossings out

Do you think a document written in pencil would stand up in court as a legal document? The shear incompetence of it all

[JaredM]

Labour not lies, just a 'failure to recollect'

So Ingram lied / failed to recollect / was economical with the truth. I wonder how long until the other ministers (Timms!) come clean.

I think that when MPs mislead parliament (or civil servants if they're the ones responsible) then it should be treated as a criminal offence and dealt with harshly.