BN66 - Time to fight back: Continued

[BrilloPad]

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?

Can I just remind everyone that IMO(and others) helen7 is a troll - lets not feed it eh?

[BrilloPad]

[QUOTE=helen7;677031]

I dont see how something that is unlawful can be enforced as LAw, that just doesnt make sense to me.QUOTE]

The quote from HMRC letter states that it can only be found 'incompatible with the human rights act' by the Judical Review. - a 'declaration of incompatibility'

If found incompatible does that make it unlawful?

ahh yes - here we go. as expected. believing anything HMRC say.

of course we **could** wait for montp response. ooops - sorry for bringing common sense in.

[TheGadgetMan]

As far as I know they have to open an investigation for each self assesment that you send them. They have a year to do this, after which, that particular year is closed.

However, I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong.

Yes my understanding was also that HMRC only have 12 months from the final date of filing in which to start an investigation....

however, HMRC started an investigation (on my first year with MP) 11 months AFTER the window of opportunity closed for them...and my understanding is that this has happened to several others too...now that really pi$$ed me off...

I think that MP had some correspondence with MrYouKnowWho () about this...basically telling him to bog off...'You had your chance to start an investigation, youve had all the information, the window of opportunity has now closed.'

HMRC's response was that they had the right to start the investigation because new information about my tax return had come to light that they had not been aware of before...

THIS A IS TOTAL LIE!!!

My tax return was properly filed on time and it contained ALL my income...HMRC had all the information...there was nothing more to tell them...

Methinks that I need to get back to MP and get this particular year resolved...

[SantaClaus]

Yes my understanding was also that HMRC only have 12 months from the final date of filing in which to start an investigation....

however, HMRC started an investigation (on my first year with MP) 11 months AFTER the window of opportunity closed for them...and my understanding is that this has happened to several others too...now that really pi$$ed me off...

I think that MP had some correspondence with MrYouKnowWho () about this...basically telling him to bog off...'You had your chance to start an investigation, youve had all the information, the window of opportunity has now closed.'

HMRC's response was that they had the right to start the investigation because new information about my tax return had come to light that they had not been aware of before...

THIS A IS TOTAL LIE!!!

My tax return was properly filed on time and it contained ALL my income...HMRC had all the information...there was nothing more to tell them...

Methinks that I need to get back to MP and get this particular year resolved...

Methinks HMRC are lying too. I would get back to MP.

[SantaClaus]

Can I just remind everyone that IMO(and others) helen7 is a troll - lets not feed it eh?

I'm beginning to think helen7 is a troll too now.

[Toocan]

ooppps

In particular, where the only ground of appeal is alledged incompatibility with human rights, appellants are asked to note that the human rights act does not provide for the legislation to be set aside, even if a finding of incompatibility were made. The only remedy provided in that eventis a declaration of incompatibility. Such a declaration cannot be made by Gemeral or Special Commissioners, but only by the High Court or above.

Thats the paragraph in full....

This is going to be a fantastic letter. This is HMRC throwing all the toys out of its pram!

HMRC appear to be saying that they will ignore both the sprit of the Human Rights Act, and the law.

In addition, should the High Court declare that BN66 is incompatible with human rights, then no court will enforce collection – how could they?

So in summary, the first point it political dynamite. The head of HMRC will have to leave his job when that gets out to the press regardless of the view of the MTM scheme. The minister may have to go too – how can anybody approve of infringing human rights to blatantly.

The second point brings an effective end to HMRC’s investigation as they will have no route of enforcement.

What a waste of taxpayers money – you’d think we were in a boom.

[SantaClaus]

This is going to be a fantastic letter. This is HMRC throwing all the toys out of its pram!

HMRC appear to be saying that they will ignore both the sprit of the Human Rights Act, and the law.

In addition, should the High Court declare that BN66 is incompatible with human rights, then no court will enforce collection – how could they?

So in summary, the first point it political dynamite. The head of HMRC will have to leave his job when that gets out to the press regardless of the view of the MTM scheme. The minister may have to go too – how can anybody approve of infringing human rights to blatantly.

The second point brings an effective end to HMRC’s investigation as they will have no route of enforcement.

What a waste of taxpayers money – you’d think we were in a boom.

Thats nothing, you should see how much money the govt. give to Crapita!

[helen7]

Can I just remind everyone that IMO(and others) helen7 is a troll - lets not feed it eh?

You thought I worked for HMRC last week, now you think I am a troll. You are indeed paranoid. Ha ha ha. Maybe I should invite Malvino back :-)

I appreciate that we should all be positive looking forward but we need to care not to confuse optimism with ignorance.

I fully support the appeal and 100% behind MTM. However I do feel I was misled and lied to when I was recruited into the scheme by Watkins and New Media Factory; so do I trust them..no.

[ASB]

few snippets.....
...

"only ground of appeal is alledged incompatibility with human rights" "does not provide for the legislation to be set aside"

...

This gets you some more hope you win points.

Without knowledge of the entire context this is seemingly complete tosh. You have right of appeal on a number of fronts (even simply "I don't like it" against an individual closure noticel). The second I find more interesting. True winning in europe does not provide provide for the legislation to be set aside.

Nations have refused these judgements, every one has eventaully capitulated or seen the appelant simply give up. If one really doesn't the stakes get raised high indeed.

There seems to be some desperation in this apparent tactic -especially since they must be aware the appelants are well advised.

[BrilloPad]

You thought I worked for HMRC last week, now you think I am a troll. You are indeed paranoid. Ha ha ha. Maybe I should invite Malvino back :-)

I appreciate that we should all be positive looking forward but we need to care not to confuse optimism with ignorance.

I fully support the appeal and 100% behind MTM. However I do feel I was misled and lied to when I was recruited into the scheme by Watkins and New Media Factory; so do I trust them..no.

As it happens I know who Mal is and why he posted what he did - I am not allowed to say publicly though!!

I have an idea who you are. But who cares? You are either with us or against us.

I dont think anyone on here trusts montp. I think we look at what they are doing - and while they do everything possible then we support them. Can you suggest anything else they should be doing right now? Apart from more information and that point is debatable....

What I object to is you trusting anyone against montp - especially HMRC. You take whatever they say and believe it. And you try to destabilize others. You will not succeed.

Why dont you STFU and go back to lurking.