BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[BrilloPad]

28,000 votes, 2nd place.

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/please-go/

Can we petition for YouKnowWho to resign?

[PlaneSailing]

Compare this:

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/budget2008/bn66.pdf

and this:

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/budget2009/bn60.pdf

They are both "artificial" schemes, so what's the difference?

The response to the following FOI request could be interesting. If the schemes covered by BN60 have cost the Treasury a similar amount (or more) than BN66, then why was the latter retrospectively clarified and the former not?

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...ance_bill_2009

Where is the consistency? Where is the legitimate expectation? Where is the certainty?

Could it be that there is one law for the institutions and another for the little guy?

The Government's position is indefencible. You can't just apply retrospective tax in arbitrary fashion whenever you fancy. There lies tyrany.

I'm in the middle of a letter (the fourth in a series) to my MP. I find
this absolutley disgraceful. It is now obvious that BN66 was made
retrospective because we're small fry to them.

Let the Revenue try the 'fair' card after this nonsense.

[ContractIn]

Just to let you know that my MP phoned me (!).
She wanted to let me know that she is still waiting to hear from the treasury and is chasing them for some proper answers/information...

I'm sure not all MPs are like her, but she is onside and seems genuinely interested in helping me/us.

Want to meet your MP?
PM me and I will send you through some documentation that will help structure your meeting.

Every MP meeting is very beneficial for us all.

I had a response from my MP's PA today, stating they have checked again with the treasury as to why I have not had a response to my letters and they were informed that the reason for not responding was because all letters relating to Section 58 were put on hold until after The Budget and that they should be receiving a response shortly!

[Emigre]

I had a response from my MP's PA today, stating they have checked again with the treasury as to why I have not had a response to my letters and they were informed that the reason for not responding was because all letters relating to Section 58 were put on hold until after The Budget and that they should be receiving a response shortly!

If your wording is absolutely accurate it sounds as if Section 58 responses were deliberately held back. Why? It would have been courteous to pass a message back that responses would be delayed. When was the decision to delay made? At one time there was only one letter so it wouldn't be appropriate to complain about the number of responses required. Also, most letters would be in a standard form and therefore only require one standard response.

Why were there no retrospective elements in this budget, and yet some of the wording looked extremely familiar. Has our campaign prevented retrospection this time round? Some more FOIs seem to be needed here.

[ContractIn]

If your wording is absolutely accurate it sounds as if Section 58 responses were deliberately held back. Why? It would have been courteous to pass a message back that responses would be delayed. When was the decision to delay made? At one time there was only one letter so it wouldn't be appropriate to complain about the number of responses required. Also, most letters would be in a standard form and therefore only require one standard response.

Why were there no retrospective elements in this budget, and yet some of the wording looked extremely familiar. Has our campaign prevented retrospection this time round? Some more FOIs seem to be needed here.

I cut and pasted from the e-mail I received. I agree with your views.

Next it will be waiting for outcome from JR hearing before responding.

[Emigre]

Can we petition for YouKnowWho to resign?

Government ministers don't resign any more no matter how corrupt, inept, incompetent, or unprincipled they are. It is just one part of the destruction of Parliament brought on by NuLiebor.

[silver_lining]

I cut and pasted from the e-mail I received. I agree with your views.

Next it will be waiting for outcome from JR hearing before responding.

I have no doubt, they are waiting on the outcome of the hearing. If it goes well for HMRC, they will simply reiterate the same tune.... we believe we are right blah blah... as they will feel slightly empowered.

If we are granted review, you probably hear nothing again until after the the JR or the same reiteration of what has already been forthcoming.

Budget excuse while possibly somewhat true, I don't believe to be the principle reason.

[BrilloPad]

Government ministers don't resign any more no matter how corrupt, inept, incompetent, or unprincipled they are. It is just one part of the destruction of Parliament brought on by NuLiebor.

But civil servants can be sacked for bullying.....

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Any of the original 4 test cases out there?

Is anyone who was one of the 4 test cases, that HMRC were supposed to be taking to the Commissioners, reading this?

If so, it would be well worth you submitting a DPA request to see what info they hold on you. Drop me a line at bn66_letter@hotmail.co.uk

Thanks
DR

[superuser]

Breaking news... HMRC v First founder. HMRC lost

Today I read in the Telegraph business section that HMRC lost its case against the founder of First group who'd benefited from a double taxation treaty loophole. The judge said that at the time the loophole was legal and that HMRC could not retrospectively apply the legislation that closed it.