BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[DonkeyRhubarb]

New Letter

Anyone not written to their MP yet?

Can I tempt you to send a new version of the letter?

It will only take a couple of minutes to fill in your name&address, sign it and stick it in the post.

Email me at [email protected].

Go on...

[BrilloPad]

This is the latest we have.

PwC JR oral hearing
3rd June
No further details at the moment but they are up before us. We hope to get someone to attend and report back.

Montp JR oral hearing
16th June
Court listing - CO10012 - Huitson vs. HM Revenue & Customs

You can check court listings, in the late afternoonon, on the day before:
http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/list_admin.htm

So shall we do that protest at the first or second hearing?

Many thanks to the person who PMed me pointing out that the RCJ has its own power supply.......

[MuddyFunster]

Can I just check to make sure I understand what these hearings will achieve. Are they to just get a date for a JR? If so, I presume that the actual JR will be some time next year, probably second half??

[BrilloPad]

Can I just check to make sure I understand what these hearings will achieve. Are they to just get a date for a JR? If so, I presume that the actual JR will be some time next year, probably second half??

They are just to get a JR to be heard. Not sure on timescale after that. I originally read that JR is supposed to be heard within 3 months of application. I believe our JRs are deliberately being held back to cause us the maximum distress.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

They are just to get a JR to be heard. Not sure on timescale after that. I originally read that JR is supposed to be heard within 3 months of application. I believe our JRs are deliberately being held back to cause us the maximum distress.

I heard 3-9 months from JR approval to court date. There is still an outside chance it could happen before the end of this year.

[BrilloPad]

I heard 3-9 months from JR approval to court date. There is still an outside chance it could happen before the end of this year.

So my prediction of this not being resolved until 2012 is still looking accurate then?

[MajorGowen]

Response from Treasury...

Hello,

Got the latest stock answer from the Treasury yesterday. Only took them just under 4 months to reply....

"Dear Humfrey

Thank you for your letter of 17 February enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Mr Majorgowen of Address, about section 58 of the 2008 Finace Act which was explained in Budget Note 66. I am sorry for the delay in replying.

As Jane Kennedy indicated during the Parliamentary debate on the Finance Bill, section 58 prevents a tax avoidance scheme which was set up to abuse the UK's Double Taxation Treaties. The scheme also set out to circumvent legislation introduced in 1987 specifically to stop this type of abuse which itself was retrospective in nature. the Government does not believe that the scheme was ever consistent with the law, since the 1987 legislation applied to it. Section 58 makes it clear that this type of avoidance does not work, never has done and is entirely consistent with the action Parliament took in 1987.

The Inland Revenue first learned of the scheme in 2001, and successfully settled enquiries with one of the original promoters of the scheme who accepted that the income should be taxed in the UK. The Revenue subsequently initiated enquiries into other users of the scheme. However, during 2007 both the number of disclosures and amounts of tax involved reached such a high level that the Government decided that a legislative response was appropriate.

The Government has always limited the use of retrospection as far as possible, using it for the worst cases of avoidance to ensure fairness and certainty for all taxpayers. That continues to be Government policy. In exceptional circumstances, the Government reserves the right to use retrospection, as in this instance, where it is fair, proportionate and in the public interest to do so.Retrospective legislation does not in itself contavene the European Convention on Human Rights.

Prior to introducing the legislation the Government considered very carefully the issues relating to fairness and certainty, and the public interest, and took the view that in the circumstances the legislation was appropriate. The users of this scheme embarked on a highly aggressive attempt to avoid tax on UK income or gains in a manner which Parliament previously sought to prevent.

The legislation is now the subject of a number of 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.

Blah, blah.

Yours sincerely

Stephen Timms"

[PlaneSailing]

Auntie Harriet

Anyone not written to their MP yet?

Can I tempt you to send a new version of the letter?

It will only take a couple of minutes to fill in your name&address, sign it and stick it in the post.

Email me at [email protected].

Go on...

If anyone as Harriet Harman as their MP, you could perhaps
ask her if she still thinks this, regarding MP's expenses, holds true:

"If people have made claims in good faith under a system that existed at the time, then I don't think there is any need for resignations."

As she said last night on Newsnight.

[PlaneSailing]

Hello,

Got the latest stock answer from the Treasury yesterday. Only took them just under 4 months to reply....

"Dear Humfrey

...

The Government has always limited the use of retrospection as far as possible, using it for the worst cases of avoidance to ensure fairness and certainty for all taxpayers.

...


"

Do you think that Mr Timms actually believes this nonsense???? Lets send him
a dictionary with the word 'Certainty' highlighted.

[nevergoingtopay]

Gordon

Seems Gordon's not a bad bloke after all, seems he has been sharing his cleaner with his brother.....

Seems we the tax payer paid £6,000 for this in expenses and we also paid twice for some plumbing work!

I look forward to listing all of these at my bankruptcy hearing!