BN66 - Time to fight back: Continued

[poppy01]

yes HMRC we know about court powers, us lot are actually quite well read now thanks to you, its called The European Court of Human Rights, we didnt expect Slough magistrates court to be able to do much about it....jeeeez give me strength

we already knew this didnt we?
i'd like to see how it plays when they try to bankrupt people not only with retrospective tax law but also law that has been found by a judicial review to be unlawful with respect to the Human rights act. I for one would go to jail before paying up. they can take their retrospective bs and stick it where the sun dont shine. If they think this is going to be easy they can think on...

[dezze]

The cheeky Bar-Stewards.

Wel, I still have a closure notice scribbled in pencil.
I also have a closure notice on a tax year that was not put under investigation in time and hence closed.

Time to place the dustbin or rotweiler under the letter box.

These sentences conflict with each other: Can anyone explain?
"only ground of appeal is alledged incompatibility with human rights" "does not provide for the legislation to be set aside"

Is there a time limit for an investigation into a return? If so, what is it?

[poppy01]

Is there a time limit for an investigation into a return? If so, what is it?

apparently not

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Do HMRC seriously think we would take any notice of what they say anymore?

I've lost count of the number of letters I've had of them over the past 5 years trotting out same the same old FUD.

You can only cry wolf so many times and I, for one, am not listening any more.

See you in court mate.

[Emigre]

Its interesting that HMRC hound as if they believe we are criminals. Perhaps unfortunately we cannot be tried as criminals on this where we would enjoy the presumption of innocence until proven beyond reasonable doubt that we were guilty - of the laws in force at the time. The burden of proof would be on HMRC who so far have done everything they can to weasel out of going to Court.

To HMRC , we WANT the High Court, we are not interested in starting the process with the Commissioners. We want a public solution, as well as public humiliation for you and your paymasters for your "inappropriate and unacceptable behaviour".

[poppy01]

Its interesting that HMRC hound as if they believe we are criminals. Perhaps unfortunately we cannot be tried as criminals on this where we would enjoy the presumption of innocence until proven beyond reasonable doubt that we were guilty - of the laws in force at the time. The burden of proof would be on HMRC who so far have done everything they can to weasel out of going to Court.

To HMRC , we WANT the High Court, we are not interested in starting the process with the Commissioners. We want a public solution, as well as public humiliation for you and your paymasters for your "inappropriate and unacceptable behaviour".

spot on - i get angrier by the day

[smalldog]

spot on - i get angrier by the day

me too, we arent criminals as we were operating within the boundaries of the law....oh sorry they changed it didnt they, back to 87 hahaha!!!!

[helen7]

So even if we win the Judical Review HMRC can still demand the money? Or does it mean that it will be reffered on to a higher court?

At what point could the 'appeal' to the closure notices get rejected by HMRC and the 28 days to pay up be demanded?

[poppy01]

So even if we win the Judical Review HMRC can still demand the money? Or does it mean that it will be reffered on to a higher court?

At what point could the 'appeal' to the closure notices get rejected by HMRC and the 28 days to pay up be demanded?

you tell us

people , if they press on after the jr finds it unlawful, we get together - right

[smalldog]

you tell us

people , if they press on after the jr finds it unlawful, we get together - right

I dont see how something that is unlawful can be enforced as LAw, that just doesnt make sense to me. Unlawful, theres a clue ni the wording! means it shouldnt be the law???? Can someone explain how that works?

Bit like the government passing a law setting the speed limit at 1MPH, then a court finds its unlawful to do so. Does that then mean anyone travelling at 30MPH gets prosecuted or not?