BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[seadog]

if the request for JR is turned down again, I expect there'll be some pretty aggressive tactics coming our way. Don't know if I'm prepared for that eventuality. Might tip me over the edge.

If we get knocked back on both the oral hearings for the JR's we will need to think about plan B.

We can give it some thought over the next couple of weeks so that we are ready when we get the decision after the 16th June.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

if the request for JR is turned down again, I expect there'll be some pretty aggressive tactics coming our way. Don't know if I'm prepared for that eventuality. Might tip me over the edge.

I think Brannigan and MacDougall will have been told to tread very carefully. If they try any bully boy tactics we'll have MPs on them like a ton of bricks.

Go on little man, I dare you to send out one of your poison pen letters.

Feeling a bit impotent are we?

[SantaClaus]

I think Brannigan and MacDougall will have been told to tread very carefully. If they try any bully boy tactics we'll have MPs on them like a ton of bricks.

Go on little man, I dare you to send out one of your poison pen letters.

Feeling a bit impotent are we?

I think if little man sends out his poison pen letters, there will be a queue of people at his front door

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Appeals Process

Can anyone confirm if this is correct?

HMRC have accepted postponement of payment pending the appeals.

The appeals were on 2 grounds:

(1) the human rights angle (JR etc.)

(2) a technical argument that the new legislation doesn't achieve its purpose.

If the JR is refused or lost, HMRC would still have to take one or other cases to the Commissioners to get a ruling on (2). Even if this went against us, Montp could seek leave to appeal to the High Court.

So, if the JR is refused, this in itself does not allow HMRC to try and collect any money.

[helen7]

Jchr

Got a reply from my MP

'The JCHR scrutinises all Government and Private bills, and so it has already examined the finance act, including section 58. I understand that it only produces reports on more contentious bills. Therefore I would be unable to request for them to review section 58 again.'

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Got a reply from my MP

'The JCHR scrutinises all Government and Private bills, and so it has already examined the finance act, including section 58. I understand that it only produces reports on more contentious bills. Therefore I would be unable to request for them to review section 58 again.'

Your MP must be a Labour toady. Lots of other MPs have written to the JCHR and to quote the Committee clerk from an email I received last week, they are "currently considering how to proceed".

He confirmed that the Committee did not scrutinise s58 (Clause 55) at the time because they were unaware that any measures in the 2008 Finance Bill raised significant human rights issues.

[BrilloPad]

Can anyone confirm if this is correct?

HMRC have accepted postponement of payment pending the appeals.

The appeals were on 2 grounds:

(1) the human rights angle (JR etc.)

(2) a technical argument that the new legislation doesn't achieve its purpose.

If the JR is refused or lost, HMRC would still have to take one or other cases to the Commissioners to get a ruling on (2). Even if this went against us, Montp could seek leave to appeal to the High Court.

So, if the JR is refused, this in itself does not allow HMRC to try and collect any money.

I can confirm that it is correct. Of course IANAL.

[BrilloPad]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/5...democracy.html

Mark Rowley, the chief constable of Surrey, has watched as the Home Office has chopped the number of police in his force by 144. Now he's been told that he'll have to lose another 50 – and he has had enough. He has decided to seek a judicial review of the Home Office's decision to cut his budget. He says that the Met hasn't suffered in the same way, and that criminals from London target Surrey as a consequence.

To get a judge to overrule the Home Office's decision, Mr Rowley will have to show that it was so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have made it. That sounds like an impossibly high threshold although, in practice, judges have been willing to rule decisions "unreasonable" with surprising frequency.

===================================

There will be no issue in finding bn66 unreasonable...........

[robinhood]

I can confirm that it is correct. Of course IANAL.

Yes this is what I assumed. The Tax Appeal itself to the Special Commissioners is due I believe in Q4 2009

[helen7]

Your MP must be a Labour toady. Lots of other MPs have written to the JCHR and to quote the Committee clerk from an email I received last week, they are "currently considering how to proceed".

He confirmed that the Committee did not scrutinise s58 (Clause 55) at the time because they were unaware that any measures in the 2008 Finance Bill raised significant human rights issues.

Actually no. Conservative Shadow Treasury Minister.