BN66 - Time to fight back!!!

[smalldog]

I expect more dirty tricks like this over the coming months. They are going to do everything they can to extract payments on account, and judging by the results of our Poll they are going to need to try a lot harder!!!

Be prepared for more intimidation tactics.

Incidentally, is anyone else a bit suspicious as to why we haven't received closure notices yet? I know they've probably been on holiday but even so it's 7 weeks since the Finance Bill was passed. Perhaps the buggers are up to something?

I am very suspicious, hopefully they are having a rethink!!! NOT...

PS - I wrote to my MP and their response was, really sorry its part of the bill...tough

[kiwinlondon]

[QUOTE=smalldog;623126]I am very suspicious, hopefully they are having a rethink!!! NOT...

My tax mate reckons the person that would have had to approve everything was prob on hols... also they are pretty crap at their job so maybe in the next few weeks according to him... am waiting by the mail box..... NOT!

As for being sinister i doubt it.. having worked at enough govt depts most of the employees spend their day counting down to tea break time.....they arent that bright... its taken them 8yrs to come up with changing legislation to get round the structure....

As for writing letters.. im writing one to Osama Bin Laden.. see if he can help!!

[WhatEver]

Finance Bill 2004 - Retrospective legislation

Hi

I've been reading with interest since the beginning so thx to all for the info so far. I believe we'll win given this is such an obviously underhand and illegal attempt to win their argument. The upside is they've essentially admitted they didn't have a leg to stand on in the first instance so they resorted to a government sponsored theft - in hindsight, we should've seen this coming given Nu-L's track record of incompetence and shoddy legislative application. Fyi, I've sent a verbose letter to my MP explaining the whole situation and requesting what the Conservatives would do once back in office.

I know this subject has been touched on recently but here's some more detail/opinion.

Anyway, I was trawling around and found some interesting info w/rgds retrospective tax. My main point of interest is that the Finance Act 2004 tries to put in place an enabler for the govmt to enact such legislation back dated to the announcement - 2 Dec 2004. Whilst this did make law the arguments as whether even that would be legal are questionable….

HoC research paper...
http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib...5/rp05-067.pdf

Interesting points from pg 14-20

Page 27…

B. Retrospection and human rights
In evidence to the Treasury Committee in December 2004, John Whiting at PwC
suggested that the Paymaster General’s statement on forthcoming avoidance legislation
“does have very interesting human rights implications”:

There is never any objection to the Government, the Minister, standing up and
saying, "As of today, we are going to block such and such", so let's get that clear,
that is known. The idea that you can stand up and say, or put a written statement
down and say, "Right, if something turns up in the future, we don't know what it is,
but we reserve the right to come back to today and basically change the way the
tax law operates', let's be clear, the system of tax we have in this country is that
you are taxed on the basis of what the law says. If, therefore, there is a possibility
of retrospectively altering your tax bill, then it does have very interesting human
rights implications and it has been mooted that this idea of retrospection could
now be vulnerable to human rights challenges if we go that far.76

Anne Redston at Ernst & Young discussed the issue at more length in written evidence
to the Committee:

This is a radical new departure for the UK, which has for centuries accepted that
tax cannot be levied unless parliament has passed specific legislation authorising
its collection. This principle was set out by Lord Simonds Scott v Russell (1945)
30 TC 375 at 424: "My Lords, there is a maxim of Income Tax law which, though
it may sometimes be over-stressed, yet ought not to be forgotten. It is that the
subject is not to be taxed unless the words of the taxing statute unambiguously
impose the tax upon him."

It is a principle with deep roots, deriving essentially from the Magna Carta. As
Simon Sharma puts it in his History of Britain: "The Magna Carta . . . spelled out
for the first time, and unequivocally . . . that the law was not simply the will or
whim of the king but was an independent power in its own right." The history of
democratic government in Britain has, as one of its fundamental themes, the
establishing of the right of citizens not to be taxed by government fiat, but by the
clear words of statute, following the introduction of specific legislation agreed by
parliament. The statement of the PMG suggests a departure from that
fundamental principle …

Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the Human Rights Convention provides that: "Every
natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.
No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and
subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of
international law. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair
the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use
of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of
taxes or other contributions or penalties."

Contracting states thus have a wide margin when collecting taxes (Svenska
Management Gruppen AB v Sweden, Application 11036/84, 45 DR211 [1985]),
but this is subject to an interference that they must achieve a "fair balance"
between the demands of the general interest of the community and the
requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights and that
there must be a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means
used and the aim pursued, see AGOSI v the United Kingdom, 1986, Series A no
108, p 17, para 48.

In the Sunday Times v UK [1979-80] 2 EHRR 245 at 271, para 49, the European
Court of Human Rights gave its opinion that: "A norm cannot be regarded as a
‘law’ unless it is formulated with sufficient precision to enable the citizen to
regulate his conduct: he must be able—if need be with appropriate advice—to
foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences
which a given action may entail. Those consequences need not be foreseeable
with absolute certainty: experience shows this to be unattainable. Again, whilst
certainty is highly desirable, it may bring in its train excessive rigidity and the law
must be able to keep pace with changing circumstances. Accordingly, many laws
are inevitably couched in terms which, to a greater or lesser extent, are vague
and whose interpretation and application are questions of practice."

If the principle of retrospection set out in the Paymaster General’s statement is
enacted, it is likely that it will be tested in the European Court of Human Rights, in
order to ascertain whether the citizen can "foresee, to a degree that is reasonable
in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail". It
seems, on the bare words of [this] ... statement, that the new principle would fail
this test.77

Ms Redston concluded that “the proposed new powers are a fundamental departure from
the tax principles established over many centuries in Britain; they are unnecessary, as
the disclosure rules are proving successful, and they will place an intolerable burden of
uncertainty on ordinary taxpayers who will not know if or when the government will
decide that certain arrangements are unacceptable.”78

When he appeared before the Committee its chairman John McFall, asked the
Chancellor “is this not retrospective legislation and do you think you can act in this way
and stay within the Human Rights Act?” The Chancellor replied:

Well, I think that is, in my view, not an acceptable way of proceeding. If it is
accepted that there is a loophole which has got to be closed, whether it is of a
specific nature or in a number of different areas, then it should be closed
immediately. If people are not going to act in a way that allows it to be closed
through the Finance Act legislation, we just said that we would insist that it would
be from the date of the Pre-Budget Report, and I think that is perfectly
reasonable. Once you accept that a scheme is wrong, that as a form of
avoidance it is unacceptable, then I think it is reasonable to close it on the day
you have announced that you want it to stop. We are confident, I may say, that
this does not conflict with the ECHR.

Chairman: And you do not think that you will be breaching the Human Rights
Act?

Mr Brown: Well, I think the basis of the European Convention on Human Rights
is that it gives a government the power on behalf of the tax-paying public to raise
taxes in a fair and proportionate way.79

For its part the Committee observed that the question could “only finally be tested as and
when the Government introduces any legislation on the basis of the announcement.”80

[Hawkwind]

Incidentally, is anyone else a bit suspicious as to why we haven't received closure notices yet? I know they've probably been on holiday but even so it's 7 weeks since the Finance Bill was passed. Perhaps the buggers are up to something?

Does anyone know if the JR has been requested as I seem to remember reading that there was only a 3 month time window for this.

If this is the case I wouldn't expect to see any closure notices until after 3 months have elapsed with the intention that we will have lost our grounds of appeal.

[poppy01]

I am very suspicious, hopefully they are having a rethink!!! NOT...

PS - I wrote to my MP and their response was, really sorry its part of the bill...tough

It basically due to the fact they are a bunch of lazy tw*ts, who couldnt be arsed closing the scheme years ago and are now trying to wriggle out of their responsibility with bogus legislation, they also dont want to be diverted from their main occupation (m*sturbation), while theres a chance the JR could go our way.

They can try and seize my assets if they want, I dont have any.

The letters were scare mongering,

[ContractIn]

I assume he is your local MP? Even if someone else has written to him, you should anyway.

You may want to use this as a starting point.

http://forums.contractoruk.com/622437-post1750.html

I have done, I was just seeing if anyone else had also sent my local MP a similar letter?

[ContractIn]

Ctd

How long until you receive a certificate? I received a letter from HMRC acknowledging request for CTD and monies have left my account but I have not received a certificate?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

How long until you receive a certificate? I received a letter from HMRC acknowledging request for CTD and monies have left my account but I have not received a certificate?

I received mine after about 10 days.

[Rainham]

DTC certificate

The certificate comes about a week after the letter. Don't hold your breath though it's not very special and mine was out of allignment where it printed! What you come to expect from the HMRC really. It had the right date and cash figure on it so I'm happy.

[ContractIn]

I received mine after about 10 days.

cheers - i'll be chaisng then by tomorrow!