BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[SantaClaus]

There are 6 concerning Section 58:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...a_facie_case_o
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques..._act_2008_fair
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...trospective_ta
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...e_act_2008_and
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...ection_58_fina
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques..._the_retrospec

Spin on that Mr Timms!!!

Really excellent stuff DR Although, I would be surpised if Timms goes in for the Tuliper of the Year award here.

[Toocan]

As I understand it the limit for opening an enquiry is not 12 months after the return has gone in but 1 year after the 31 January deadline for submitting the return. A pedantic but important difference if you submitted your return on 15 January one year and got an inquiry 16 January the next year.

I think it used to be how you say, but this year (and onward) it is 12 months after submission. This is an attempt by HMRC to get us to submit our returns early.

[centurian]

Really excellent stuff DR Although, I would be surpised if Timms goes in for the Tuliper of the Year award here.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques..._act_2008_fair

I think this one is the most useful as it deals with the governments use of retrospective legislation. I had a 'debate' on the general forum when I stuck up for retrospective legislation itself.

Instead I think the focus should be on why BN66 is an inappropriate use of that weapon and this FOI deals with it. If the government claim the use of retrospective legislation is "“fair, proportionate and in
the public interest”, then challenging this must be the target.

The problem is that FOI is for getting access to information already generated. You can't use it to "create" information - i.e. ask a very specific question for which no-one has answered it yet.

However, if they are unable to answer it - then that can be used as evidence itself - i.e. that they haven't considered it.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

The problem is that FOI is for getting access to information already generated. You can't use it to "create" information - i.e. ask a very specific question for which no-one has answered it yet.

You are right BUT what alternative do we have?

All of these questions have been put to them though over 100 MPs but, after nearly 3 months, they have chosen not to respond to a single one!

Now that the questions are in the public domain, even if they reject the requests, we can focus our MPs' attention on getting answers.

Incidentally, there are other (non public) requests in the pipeline to request all the documentation associated with BN66, both from HMRC and Treasury. They can only deny these requests on cost grounds, since documentation must exist.

Our next line of attack will be to target HMRC officers who have overseen the shambles of this investigation. I bet some of their emails, memos, reports would make interesting reading.

I make no apologies for these tactics. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander. If nothing else, it's payback time.

[TykeMerc]

I make no apologies for these tactics. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander. If nothing else, it's payback time.

Perfectly reasonable tactic for you to employ, keep up your fight, retrospective tax legislation is immoral.

Maybe it's because I'm unaffected personally, but my MP hasn't even acknowledged receipt of my two letters based on your templates.

Keep up the pressure and employ any reasonable and legal means, this legislation needs to be squashed.

[smalldog]

maybe the government are going to remove it in next weeks budget hence the treasury not saying a bean or replying to letters...what a wonderful thought!!!!

[helen7]

maybe the government are going to remove it in next weeks budget hence the treasury not saying a bean or replying to letters...what a wonderful thought!!!!

Actually, I think they are going to remove the freedom of information act instead.

[kiwinlondon]

Actually, I think they are going to remove the freedom of information act instead.

And retrospectively make any information already obtained inadmissable in court ;-)

[DonkeyRhubarb]

maybe the government are going to remove it in next weeks budget hence the treasury not saying a bean or replying to letters...what a wonderful thought!!!!

What have you been smoking? Seen any flying pigs recently?

Seriously though, judging by a letter someone recently received from Stephen Timms, they've got no intention of budging an inch.

"The legislation is now the subject of 2 applications for judicial review. Should those applications go forward, the court will adjudicate on these matters. For the avoidance of doubt, the Government will contest any such proceedings vigorously."

[helen7]

Seems every article about the budget this year mentions targeting tax avoidance and high earners.

Anybody get the feeling we are about to get royaly shafted on wednesday with new measures to allow them to close loopholes retrospectivly where they feel tax is due?