BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[p4nd4b34r]

I think the last think people want to do, pandabear, is step out of one failed scheme straight onto another one.

thats fine.. me neither. i just found the nervous breakdown thing offensive. excuse me for that.

good luck to you all I'm out of here

[BrilloPad]

I feel like I just walked into a playground... So my comment on your posts is worthy of a ban but your making light of someones nervous breakdown.. thats ok? then ban me.. dont want to be here..

As per my PM, I objected to your comment about my post counts. It has nothing to do with the thread. Why not PM me back instead of destroying the flow of the thread?

As for the nervous breakdown, its important that people here know about it in case they are seriously considering it. People here are desperate.

If there is anything else please PM me.

[OnYourBikeGB]

thats fine.. me neither. i just found the nervous breakdown thing offensive. excuse me for that.

good luck to you all I'm out of here

I don't know how familiar you are with Alan, he has had a rough time himself, but nonetheless it was Alan who did a lot of the presentations to sell the scheme. So, when he shows up now asking if we were told it was abusive, he's the one that didn't do the telling. Good feeling towards him is somewhat limited. And of course, he turned up in court for the JR willing to cosy up to HMRC, I doubt it was to help us out. I don't wish him any personal malice, but to turn up now, when people are grasping at straws with another scheme with NO evidence that it would be successful kind of takes the piss. And anyone seeing that he's got expert opinion on it? Well, we've heard that from him before, and here we are.

[NonnyMouse]

Apologies if this thread is only for people directly affected by BN66 - or if I'm only stating the obvious, but I've been following it and was thinking that it seems to me there's two possible ways to get this overturned now. One is the ECHR and they can fast-track cases, it doesnt have to take years and although the supreme court isnt bound by a ruling from ECHR, something in your favour would give the supreme court something to work with - at the minute they've looked at the applicable laws in every which way they can and they can't see any reason to hear the case.

The only other way is through parliment, get a MP with a spine on your side - get a public interest debate - look at bank charges and pp reclaiming, sometimes the huge institutions do lose.

Good luck.

[SantaClaus]

I don't know how familiar you are with Alan, he has had a rough time himself, but nonetheless it was Alan who did a lot of the presentations to sell the scheme. So, when he shows up now asking if we were told it was abusive, he's the one that didn't do the telling. Good feeling towards him is somewhat limited. And of course, he turned up in court for the JR willing to cosy up to HMRC, I doubt it was to help us out. I don't wish him any personal malice, but to turn up now, when people are grasping at straws with another scheme with NO evidence that it would be successful kind of takes the piss. And anyone seeing that he's got expert opinion on it? Well, we've heard that from him before, and here we are.

I actually caught sight of him handing notes to HMRC's lawyers too, so wouldn't trust him further than I can throw my cat.

[harmony]

Emails sent

Did my bit and sent mails to TSC and local MP. Here's hoping, but the political wind blows ill right now IMHO.

Starting to look at possible actions post negative ECHR hearing (it's obviously either way right now). Certainly wondering whether a dedicated unit in HMRC is a good or a bad thing....

[Toocan]

Have you written yet? Time is running out...

It is likely that a demand from HMRC will arrive on our doorsteps in the next few weeks. The scheme providers will probably appeal that to the Tax Tribunal. The first tier of the tax tribunal could meet and decide the case within 3 months. If HMRC get a decision in their favour then they can demand payment. They won’t drive someone into bankruptcy at this stage but they will apply pressure to extract money. It could be till early next year before all the stages of the appeal process are heard and then bankruptcies would begin to happen curtsey of the special unit HMRC are setting up.

So we’re looking at sometime between July 2012 and the end of the year for payment demands, with bankruptcies early next year.

The best chance of stopping this now is for the government to change the law or apply a concession of some sort. That won’t happen if they don’t know about us.

Our complaint does not have a lot to do with tax avoidance – it has everything to do with HMRCs behaviour and that the law was changed after the fact. To be denied our claim is the opposite of the message that the 1987 Padmore legislation sent out. This is very important because it is the basis of the justification of section 58.

There is little point in contacting HMRC – they are the instigators of section 58. Have you written to the politicians?

Write to:

Your MP Contacting your MP - UK Parliament

The chain of command at the Treasury Contact us - HM Treasury

The Treasure Select committee Treasury Committee - membership - UK Parliament

If your MP is on the current committee – or the committee that passed section 58 – then it is even more important to contact them.

If your MP is a LibDem then make sure they understand that their hard line is going to lead to around 1,800 bankrupt families.


When writing, don’t make sweeping generalisations. Instead, tell them exactly how it will affect you and your family. Go and visit the MP so that they can see who you are; failing that, include a photo of who will be affected.

You may have already been affected – many families have been broken by this – tell them about that too.

Remember, HMRC led the MPs who passed section 58 to believe that it was being used mainly by “fat-cats” who could afford to pay up. The MPs (at that time) had received almost no letters on the subject (except from professional bodies). Let’s not let that happen again.

This will be the last chance – take it.

[Disgusted of Coventry]

DR said previously what we know -

Thanks for that!

The following suggestion might be simple-minded or politically naive, but here goes...

The Barclays retrospective tax has done 2 things :
1) Sent a message that the Government is being tough on that which is described as 'abusive avoidance'.
2) Identified a limit for 'full retrospective' & 'wholly exceptional' (3 months).

Does that mean that the Government is now theoretically able to reduce the effects of s58 without compromising it's stance?

I don't know if that's a rational interpretation or not.

[WavesAtPlay]

The time has come...

Interesting.

I've heard people speak about this before.

So when replying to a summons (invite) or a debt recovery letter, or final reminder, where you do not agree with the claim being made against you (controversy), you need to reply using 'conditional agreement' subject to certain claims being made against you being proved 'lawfully' by the claimant, such as that your legal fiction is the same as you the living being. A stated time for response and rebuttal of your proof of claim (from claimant) should be given, with a clear understanding that failure to respond in that time constitutes tacit agreement or estoppel by acquiescence, whilst you maintain full honour in law.


Everything is contract,
No contract = no statute

Is there an implicit contract to pay whatever taxes the state deems?

Could this work? If so I would expect to see everyone trying this on all the time (I have seen a Youtube video of a guy spouting this while filming it on his phone. The police officer was trying to get him to get out of the car and issue fines etc. The guy kept quoting laws such as this. The police officer gave up eventually).

My understanding is this...

Your name in Capital letters is a person (not you the human being) and therefore a corporation - i.e. it is a legal fiction.
A living being is subject only to common law whereas a person/corporation is subject to statutes (Acts of Parliament). If you (as a human being) have no contract with HMRC, you are not financially liable (for any tax) and you couldn’t have a contract because corporations cannot lawfully contract.

All Law is Commerce; All Commerce is Contract; No Contract – No Case.

We have all been fooled into thinking that we are our legal fiction - a bit like believing you are the dog or the ship when playing monopoly.

"Never go to court. The court is only a third party debt collector for a foreign corporation. You are never named on any summons. Even that which you consider to be your name is not you; it only represents you. You are not a party to the action. You cannot be charged because no fiction (any public entity) can bring any claim against a living soul." Mary Elizabeth: Croft

Although I am not an expert in legal matters, I have a fairly good feeling that this is entirely sound. It would be incredibly damaging to the government/HMRC if we all took this approach as the cat would be out of the bag big time. I would have absolutely no moral problem with this as our whole financial system is utterly corrupt with the banks creating money out of thin air every time someone takes out a loan adding to never-ending inflation (an unlawful tax). So it is impossible for the public as a whole to pay back our collective debts.

If there are any legal experts out there, I would welcome any comments on this.

[PlaneSailing]

Sent

Email sent to Gauke and the treasury committee. I will see my MP later in the week to force a case. I' m gunning for the maladministration angle.