• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

BN66 - Time to fight back: Continued

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by Ratican View Post
    Does anybody understand the significance of this (I don't...). Are 2 JRs better than one? Will they allow 2 if they are substantially similar?
    I might be wrong but I wouldn't have thought there could be 2 JR's challenging the same piece of legislation. It certainly doesn't hurt that another party has joined the fray, bringing their own legal team etc. Multiple applications should also help guarantee the JR being accepted.

    Maybe the illusive property developers have also submitted applications.

    Comment


      Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View Post
      I might be wrong but I wouldn't have thought there could be 2 JR's challenging the same piece of legislation. It certainly doesn't hurt that another party has joined the fray, bringing their own legal team etc. Multiple applications should also help guarantee the JR being accepted.

      Maybe the illusive property developers have also submitted applications.

      if hector has to do battle on two fronts so much the better.

      Comment


        Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View Post
        Maybe the illusive property developers have also submitted applications.


        Let's hope they are elusive rather than illusive, or they may just be a figment of our imagination.

        But yes, it does pose the thought whether 2 JR's will add more weight to our argument.
        'Orwell's 1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual'. -
        Nick Pickles, director of Big Brother Watch.

        Comment


          Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View Post
          I might be wrong but I wouldn't have thought there could be 2 JR's challenging the same piece of legislation. It certainly doesn't hurt that another party has joined the fray, bringing their own legal team etc. Multiple applications should also help guarantee the JR being accepted.

          Maybe the illusive property developers have also submitted applications.
          I hope sometime we can do an internet search - listings office? see how many there are.....

          Comment


            Originally posted by SantaClaus View Post


            Let's hope they are elusive rather than illusive, or they may just be a figment of our imagination.
            Spelling was never one of my strongest points but you do sometimes wonder if the Government conjured them up as a nice easy target.

            Comment


              Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View Post
              Spelling was never one of my strongest points but you do sometimes wonder if the Government conjured them up as a nice easy target.
              I wouldn't put anything past them!
              'Orwell's 1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual'. -
              Nick Pickles, director of Big Brother Watch.

              Comment


                Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View Post
                I might be wrong but I wouldn't have thought there could be 2 JR's challenging the same piece of legislation. It certainly doesn't hurt that another party has joined the fray, bringing their own legal team etc. Multiple applications should also help guarantee the JR being accepted.

                Maybe the illusive property developers have also submitted applications.

                Usually the courts look at the challenges and could combine them into one or pick one of them to lead the challenge... but not both!

                Comment


                  Originally posted by kiwinlondon View Post
                  Usually the courts look at the challenges and could combine them into one or pick one of them to lead the challenge... but not both!
                  I mean not both having seperate court hearings.

                  Comment


                    I sent in a request to reduce my payments on account for 2008-09 on the basis of reduced income. I just received a revised SA statement in which they have agreed to this which is great, however, it also includes my income from MP, BUT, still only one of the two years I was involved... The discovered year still hasn't registered even though I got a closure notice for it.... very odd.. what to do.. this reduces my exposure by almost 50%. I wonder of my local office has decided not to pursue the year that they had previously agreed closed... thoughts anyone??

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by poppy01 View Post
                      I sent in a request to reduce my payments on account for 2008-09 on the basis of reduced income. I just received a revised SA statement in which they have agreed to this which is great, however, it also includes my income from MP, BUT, still only one of the two years I was involved... The discovered year still hasn't registered even though I got a closure notice for it.... very odd.. what to do.. this reduces my exposure by almost 50%. I wonder of my local office has decided not to pursue the year that they had previously agreed closed... thoughts anyone??
                      I know of a couple who have heard NOTHING - others who get picked on mercilessly.

                      Will HMRC do a sweep later? Maybe they only plan to do so if they win?

                      Anyway - we will win - so who cares?

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X