BN66 - Time to fight back!!!

[kiwinlondon]

They are no doubt all on holiday like everyone else.... a tax lawyer mate reckons it will be next month at the earliest before they send that stuff out.....

[BrilloPad]

what I'd like to know is when are the b*stards going to issue me a f**king bill, how much do they think I owe, or are they just too damn bone idle..

several possibilities. they might have forgotten you(lost the file). or lazy. or they might be leaving you to stew to try to upset you.

[BrilloPad]

If I was in your position, I would seek advice from a lawyer in your country to get an opinion as to whether HMRC could be successful in either getting your local tax authorities to collect the debt or extradite. I don't know which commonwealth country you are in but I've heard for example that the UK and Australian tax authorities have close ties.

I wouldn't leave this to chance because as I'm sure you are aware by now HMRC are ruthless b*astards.

I cant believe you said that

What comes around goes around.....

[fubar123]

changing history

Regarding changing historic taxation laws to increase present day revenue, I fear that this will get pushed through in much the same way as IR35 was forced into law, even after being objected to. Right or wrong, I don't think the law has any moral ground when civil matters are in question.

History is littered with the winning party rewriting accounts of conflicts, disputes, etc. Why should this be any different ?

On a separate note, if bankruptcy is a distinct possibility, would moving to another EU state be beneficial for claiming housing/benefit ?

[PlaneSailing]

Lazy Hector

Like Poppy, I'm waiting for the bill
from Hector too.

Has anyone recieved a closure notice yet
or are we in a Mexican stand off with
HMRC waiting for us to send them
'correct' SA forms?

(p.s. First post & standing firm!)

[smalldog]

Like Poppy, I'm waiting for the bill
from Hector too.

Has anyone recieved a closure notice yet
or are we in a Mexican stand off with
HMRC waiting for us to send them
'correct' SA forms?

(p.s. First post & standing firm!)

I may be totally wrong here but I wouldnt be surprised if they are seeing how many people buckle and send in revised SA's before they send out the closure notices...If you send in a revised SA then I presume its then an admission on your part the money is due and therefore a closed case

[Hawkwind]

Hi, another new poster here.

Judging by the poll I'm in the same position as number of people with a balanced offset mortgage plus a bit of savings. Unfortunately I'm still going to be about £30k short of what I estimate my "debt" to be.

I don't share the confidence of some posters that we will win as I tend to agree with what ABROAD posted on the previous page however I do intend to stick it out to the bitter end, especially as there doesn't seem to be much alternative.

The main reason for my posting is that I was wondering if it might not be a good idea to pay off the offset mortgage altogether rather than maintain the attached savings account as I'm assuming HMRC can lay immediate claim to the monies in the savings account leaving you in mortgage arrears (or wahtever the equivalent might be for an offset account) whereas they would have more difficulty extracting it from the property itself.

I read some of the postings about having a charge taken against the property but that would seem to be the lesser of all evils especially as I have no intention of moving. Also would there be any point at which this action would no longer be possible e.g. after the closure notices have been sent or is it already too late?

[ContractIn]

[QUOTE=ABROAD;611633]Dear All,

Firstly in the latest correspondence from MP bullet point 8(d) rings alarm bells to me "Clients may, if they wish, settle the tax and NIC demanded". This is a very guised statement that says in my view, I think we are going to lose. If Montpelier truly believed they were going to win they would strongly urge members not to settle as it will undermine their position. Any members who settle will create a dangerous precedent. Settling is definitely an admission of guilt. When members begin to settle HMRC will know they have won and tehy will chase the rest of us even more vigorously.

Secondly. I have done some very basic reading into UK law. What I have learned is that the draconian UK legal system has this nasty little thing called parliamentary supremacy (I welcome members to read into this). In essence parliamentary supremacy allows acts of parliament to take precedent over any court made law, including Judicial reviews. I have also read that parliamentary supremacy would theoretically take precedence over any EU laws (I welcome anyone with legal knowledge to rebut this as it would actually make me feel better). I believe that MP was clinging onto the hope that the retrospective elements of this act would never come to pass. Now that it has I think MP will just be delaying the inevitable with their legal action. If MP has QCs working for them I think they would have realised by now, that such a fundamental mechanic of the UK legal system (i.e. parliamentary supremacy) would come into play and basically defeat the two avenues of defense that MP propose to use.

QUOTE]
Hello Abroad

Regarding your first point above, I believe Montpelier must list all options available to us even if detrimental to the majority. Some people may have very little liability and be in a financially comfortable position so may just wish to have the matter closed. I’m not one by the way!

Secondly, I have yet to look into parliament supremacy but wish to highlight your post to the forum as this did not appear when I was browsing yesterday, so not quite sure whether all will have seen this and would be keen for general consensus?

Cheers

[ASB]

Secondly. I have done some very basic reading into UK law. What I have learned is that the draconian UK legal system has this nasty little thing called parliamentary supremacy (I welcome members to read into this). In essence parliamentary supremacy allows acts of parliament to take precedent over any court made law, including Judicial reviews. I have also read that parliamentary supremacy would theoretically take precedence over any EU laws (I welcome anyone with legal knowledge to rebut this as it would actually make me feel better). I believe that MP was clinging onto the hope that the retrospective elements of this act would never come to pass. Now that it has I think MP will just be delaying the inevitable with their legal action. If MP has QCs working for them I think they would have realised by now, that such a fundamental mechanic of the UK legal system (i.e. parliamentary supremacy) would come into play and basically defeat the two avenues of defense that MP propose to use.

I think you have misunderstood a bit. Parliamentary supremacy dates from the 16th century. It was when parliament asserted it's right to pass law over and above the church.

The basic doctrine says:-

Parliament can pass any law.
Parliament can't bind a future parliament
A valid act of parliament cannot be questioned a court.

There is some question over whether this applies (post the 1707 act of union) in Scottish Law - since this act guaranteed the continuance of the Scottish legal system.

However, things has happened which water down the doctrine. Principally EU membership.

Courts interpret based on the written act and find accordingly. If the government doesn't like it then they legislate again. Pretty much the same as any other democracy really.

It may just be that this recent "clarification" is in contravention of EU law, in which case an eventual appeal to the ECJ should prove fruitful - and very expensive.

Edit: In theory we could pass NEW law to override specific parts of EU law which override our sovereignty. In practice it couldn't happen without us withdrawing from the EU.

[ABROAD]

Clarification

ASB, thanks for the clarification, hopefully you are correct with the the legal interpretation. As stated in my post I am happy to be proved incorrect. I will find the documentation I located on the topic and let everyone on the forum have a read.

I am going to speak to the department of justice here in the next few days and determine what chance I have to fight an extradition in relation to a retrospective law. I will update the forum on what I find.

I spoke to Tony Quinn at MP about 6 weeks ago as I had not received any info on the progress and I was still getting threatening info from HMRC regarding requests for my accounts. Anyway he believed that HMRC would either pursue some of the contractors who owed them a lot of money (been in the scheme since the beginning) and see what resistance they got or they would be more bullish and issue closure notices on every one. I believe they will try the latter as a shock tactic and see how many people pay up. Some people obviously will pay up, and the less of us there are, the easier we will be to pick off, even MP may be less likely to defend depending on how many clients are left.

Can members keep the forum updated on any closure notices that come through. I would be interested to know when they will be coming. Does anyone have a source in the media, maybe if we can bring this into the public domain/spotlight it may put pressure on HMRC to back down on pursuing this.

I think if the human rights angle is used and the story focuses in on a member who is in financial hardship as a result of this retrospective clarification it may definitely heat things up for HMRC a little. Everyone loves to hate the tax man.