BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[OldITGit]

It would be nice to know

What information was given to judge Parker by HMRC with regard to "consistently warned" and why that was not challenged by our QC. Is there any recourse in law where that misleading advice could be rescinded as it implies that HMRC protocols were not followed, in this respect, or indeed in conducting an impact analysis of S58 or indeed recourse into Parliament being misled. If so these are very serious charges..... hhhhmmmmmmmmmm

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Letter Watch

I know its been quoted before, but here is an extract from the 2008 debate


I wonder how DG can explain why he can accept this now?

Full text available here : House of Commons General Committee

What is becoming clear is that there is a boilerplate letter being drawn from by HMT or HMRC on the matters being raised. What has become clear of recent is that even letters with DG's signature on it are probably not written by him and I doubt he even has much visibility of the matters being raised. In fact it would not suprise me if the comms are being relayed in summary and short form to him. However, I also doubt he is blissfully unaware of what is at play here.

What has become the new stonewalling is the excuse that this has been dealt with by the Courts. Indeed, there are letters from DG stating that the matters being raised have been considered in depth by the Courts during the JR and the legal process is now at an end.

Well, a claim that Parliament was misled is the cornerstone of the matter being raised to DG and this was not considered for one moment during the JR and not a word mentioned in the HMT/DG/HMRC responses.

So be on watch for these signs and make sure you record them and from whom they were apparently sent:

1. Using the JR as an excuse to take no action since it would be deemed as Government interference with the Courts
2. That the Courts considered in depth the matters being brought to their attention - that is, Parliament being misled.
3. Any statement that uses the above as justification not to agree to amend or repeal the legislation.

Using misleading advice to create the legislation is no excuse to use it again to justify it.

If you receive this standard reply, copy it and file it for now and in the meantime reply demanding a qualification to any claim that the Courts dealt with the matter of misleading Parliament during the JR. Use copies of the HC and CoA transcripts and judgements to provide the counter evidence that no such position or consideration was made. If you don't have copies of these or any analysis of witness testimony and the like at the JR, hold on a while, such documents will become easily available soon.

In order to counter these rather inadequate claims to deny action on behalf of Government, a matrix of information needs to be pulled together in concise format to use as evidence rather than opinion or hearsay that makes a joke out of these boilerplate replies.

As a taster, did you know that expert HMRC witness testimony for the JR from a senior HMRC official stated that 'member of a firm' was not actually ever defined in the 1987 legislation but that HMRC believed it was nevertheless intended to include people such as us and not just partners in foreign partnerships. He even stated that even if such was not the case then we're 'members of a firm' by implication.

Funny, I thought Parliament passed laws not HMRC officials.

Also, same official confirmed that Autumn 1987 was the first time HMRC looked at the 1987 legislation and used that to recommend retrospection. That was 'the fax' that HMRC had on 5th November 2007.

Funny then that when you take the documents HMRC had on that date plus the HMRC annoated Hansard debate from 1987 you get the opposite of what this official claimed.

But to connect the pieces togther needs a degree of forensic analysis of tens of documents and even more. Getting easy access to the whole 'suite' will make it much easier for everyone to rebut the simply inate responses being received.

[BolshieBastard]

What is becoming clear is that there is a boilerplate letter being drawn from by HMT or HMRC on the matters being raised. What has become clear of recent is that even letters with DG's signature on it are probably not written by him and I doubt he even has much visibility of the matters being raised. In fact it would not suprise me if the comms are being relayed in summary and short form to him. However, I also doubt he is blissfully unaware of what is at play here.

That's not how things worked when I was in the civil service. In my Department, when a claimant sent a letter to a minister (or their MP), the equiries were fast tracked at all stages.

For ministers, the files were walked around the Department for relevant information to be gather by a special correspondence unit. It is true a civil servant would draft the reply on behalf of the minister but, each and every minister's or MP's reply was handed to them to read and be satisfied with it's content.

Only after they had signed the lette was it popped in the post. It is stretching credulity to say gauke doesnt know what's in 'his' reply to MP's and us. He clearly does know what's in them.

The trouble is, he's now sitting in government where he wanted to be. He'll now looking after his own arse and has prostituted himself to HMRC by not telling them to **** off, stop acting like the uber ***** they are and not to charge retrospective interest.

He's a duplicitous twat of the highest order, using us to get himself noticed by cameron and the tory grandise via that speech. Now he's got what he wanted, he's tossed us out like a soiled condom. How apt is that?

I read a few posts ago someone say the fight via MP's is lost. Rubbish! We have to go back to MP's and show them where HMRC lied, that their assertion of the scheme not working was not tested in tax courts so their position is very tenuous to say the least.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

For ministers, the files were walked around the Department for relevant information to be gather by a special correspondence unit. It is true a civil servant would draft the reply on behalf of the minister but, each and every minister's or MP's reply was handed to them to read and be satisfied with it's content.

Only after they had signed the lette was it popped in the post. It is stretching credulity to say gauke doesnt know what's in 'his' reply to MP's and us. He clearly does know what's in them.

BB, I'm not suggesting DG doesn't understand what he's being asked to sign. I'm suggesting that what has been drafted for him to sign is acceptable to him yet he may have a different (non Ministerial view). Of course he understands the points being raised. But the fact that the boilerplate reply ducks the very point of the matter cannot be an oversight. The simple fact is that no matter how the notion that some 'pretty poor cricket' has been going on it's not getting acknowledged via the diplomatic routes.

It's a Rumsfeld moment. We know what we know....

All I can consider is that the sheer effort being imparted to 'avoid' the matter that is at the heart of off of this must seem warranted to prevent the impact of its existence being admitted.

Look this is not about conspiracies or unseating Government or lawful rebellion. This is a simple matter of process and administration and the responsibility that goes with it.

HMRC cocked up and probably never thought in a million (retro) years that all these years later, the likes of us would still be chipping away at this. The problem of ignoring us will be that in order to be heard the hard truth will be to be spelled out at an ever growing volume. Better they just accept that they got this one wrong and deal with it. If not, then we press on. And ultimately, it's not HMRC that will be held to account - that is an office. It has people working there. They can try to blame computers for this but that won't stick.

There's a word to describe what is needed here. It's on many walls of State buildings. It's on the walls of the site for the Magna Carte in Runnymede. It's what should be made available to all - Justice.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

For HMRC

For our friends who we know watch this space I would like to make something clear. This is not about tax avoidance. It can't be about tax evasion since it was 100% transparent. It's not about % of tax paid or 'fair share' and any number of other ill-defined or simply redundant attempts to slam people who acted within the law.

This is about who determines what the consequences of all of this should be and why.

Sure, Parliament is Supreme and one cannot bind the next. However, to use this and imply what it meant 20 odd years earlier to accommodate a failing on your part of such grandiose magnitudes is far worse than any consideration of tax avoidance or I would suggest evasion.

If you think you were in the right on this then roll the dice and go to the tax courts on an even footing. If we lose, then we accept the consequences. If we win, you accept yours - you should have acted in ways you espouse yet do not enact.

Using Padmore and a claim of what Parliament intended is a disgrace and a shame on you. To re-write history for your own motives and gains knowing that what you claimed was true in 1987 was in fact the opposite and you knew it is vile. That is why this will not go away.

This is why retrospection is wrong.

This is why you should be held to account.

This is why you should want to go before the Tax Courts on the same legal playing field as existed before the law was disfigured.

As things stand, you should be ashamed to have "Her Majesty's..." used as part of your office name.

[SantaClaus]

If only Her Majesty knew there was treason involved!

[SleepingFireman]

More of the same....

Another cut and paste load of bollox from Gauke via my MP Phillip Hollobone. A shame my MP felt no need to comment on Gaukes response other than enclosing a compliments slip!

So HMRC always told us the scheme didn't work. Therefore if the scheme was fully disclosed from 2000 onwards how come I only got a letter in July07 making enquires into my 05-06 tax return. (I was only in the scheme for this period).

Then in late Oct07 I received another letter and I quote "At this point I am writing to see if you are prepared to await and accept the decision of the special commissioners/courts to settle your enquiry".

I waited and then we had BN66 in March08 with retro full effect.

Am I correct that the special commissioners/court would have been a tax tribunal?

If so, I'll be responding to my MP highlighting the above.

[Dieselpower]

Tax Court

Another cut and paste load of bollox from Gauke via my MP Phillip Hollobone. A shame my MP felt no need to comment on Gaukes response other than enclosing a compliments slip!

So HMRC always told us the scheme didn't work. Therefore if the scheme was fully disclosed from 2000 onwards how come I only got a letter in July07 making enquires into my 05-06 tax return. (I was only in the scheme for this period).

Then in late Oct07 I received another letter and I quote "At this point I am writing to see if you are prepared to await and accept the decision of the special commissioners/courts to settle your enquiry".

I waited and then we had BN66 in March08 with retro full effect.

Am I correct that the special commissioners/court would have been a tax tribunal?

If so, I'll be responding to my MP highlighting the above.

Yes that's correct.

[Fog]

Response

Hi all - I have had a response from John Redwood yesterday with the same standard letter from DG enclosed. The good news is the final paragraph in the letter from John Redwood which states:

"I do not agree with this view as I am against the legislation being applied retrospectively. I will therefore raise this matter directly with the Minister, at the earliest opportunity"

Watch this space.

It just goes to show that a supportive MP can be extremely useful - so send letters/make a visit everyone!!

Fog

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Quote from Jane Kennedy in the 2008 Finance Bill debate.

House of Commons General Committee

Jane Kennedy: I hope I get this right. It is because HMRC has not consistently made the case throughout the time period that the scheme does not work, that it is a deliberate and wilful avoidance scheme that flouts the 1987 legislation, and that it would be challenged.

As we all know, she did not get it right. Prior to 2008, HMRC never made the case.