BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[SantaClaus]

This does seem like a bit of a blow. But, having said that, if he mentioned an appeal to PWC, and the general feeling was that he would have granted the JR if there had been a closure notice, is something. Even if that didn't work, at the very, very least we would have an appeal and there are three more JR requests in the wings, so HMRC are really only postponing the inevitable.

Is it definite that MontP were late? I hadn't heard this before. I admit to reading that two or three times to make sure I had got it. If it turns out to be correct, we're owed an explanation.

Ok, thanks OnYerBikeGB. Well we have enough closure notices, some of them very amateurly hand-written

I agree we are owed an explanation if their submission was late.

[swede]

'on the back foot'

....whose words were they?

Incidentally, do we know how far outside the 3 months, the PWC request was?

If this does end up going to appeal, can we expect to see HMRC vans turning up to collect our lives/possessions, before such time that the appeal gets heard?

[poppy01]

I am speechless.

[deckster]

....whose words were they?

Well, quite. Nothing I've seen from the reports so far indicate that the PWC hearing achieved anything at all, and as far as I can see the situation is entirely unchanged from where we were before the hearing.

[NO TO RETRO]

Erm, can someone just phone Montpelier now and ask them if the application was submitted on time?
Sounds like HMRC didn't HAVE to put forward any legal arguments, so we don't really know what they've got up their sleeves. PwC fell at the first hurdle.
I still don't understand why we have to have a client with a CN? Are HMRC denying they're going to enforce the legislation. I thought the whole point of the Judicial Review was to review the legislation itslef, not how far down the line HMRC have got with enforcing it. Sounds like bureacratic nonsense.

[Emigre]

Delay

....whose words were they?

Incidentally, do we know how far outside the 3 months, the PWC request was?

If this does end up going to appeal, can we expect to see HMRC vans turning up to collect our lives/possessions, before such time that the appeal gets heard?

The issue with delay is not that clear cut. You can challenge a piece of legislation within 3 months of it hitting the statute books. Finance Act 2008 received Royal Assent on 18 July 2008 so the deadline would be 17 October 2008.

However, your case will be significantly weakened if you cannot prove either that you are impacted by it or that you are going to suffer as a result of it. To achieve this you need to have received notice of intention by HMRC that they are applying the retrospective elements of Section 58. PwC argued that the aggressive letter of 18 August 2008 set out HMRCs intention. (This letter was the bullying letter). The judge reviewed that letter and did not agree that it represented legally binding intention. PwC were relying on the date of that letter to kick off their 3 months. They submitted in early November 2008 so their logic and reasoning is perhaps not as muppet-like as we have collectively made out. As the judge put it, they either went too early or too late but the judge appeared to accept that there could be cause to review the legislation through his other comments.

There is an irony here in that only HMRC can issue Closure Notices, which were accepted as being legally binding notices of intention, and without these it would be quite difficult for anyone to prove a real case. This makes the 3 month rule very difficult to apply in any case i think.

Our case involves Huitson who we understand has received CNs. The one day late application may be deemed as immaterial or it may be deemed as irrelevant depending on how MontP present their case. Equally, we too may be kicked out on this technicality although it seems we have a stronger case for acceptance as a result of HUitson's CNs.

In terms of Appeal and the like, this has a long way to go. I cannot envisage HMRC getting heavy handed since it will weaken their case. The process has barely started.

[bananarepublic]

I think somebody with good contacts at MP should get the story regarding the delay in submitting the JR application.

What is their excuse? It seems to me this can only be that the CN's were received too close to the 3 month cut off to put the application in on time. Anyhow the 1-day delay (or whatever it is) seems like an administrative cock-up. If so it is amateur, unforgivable, incompetent.
We've known for several years that HMRC have been trying to keep this out of the courts - why shoot ourselves in the foot this way!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

On a different note

I have now received 70 testimonies.

This is outstanding, and I am sure the committee will be totally shocked when they read this.

I have removed all names from the document. I plan to submit it on Monday morning, so if you intend to send me something don't hang about.

See here for more details of what I'm looking for:

http://forums.contractoruk.com/857942-post3014.html

[smalldog]

YOUVE GOT TO BE F****** KIDDING ME OUR SUBMISSION WAS F****** LATE!!!!! madmad

OK IF WE LOSE I THINK I MIGHT TRY AND SUE THEM FOR MALADMINISTRATION

[helen7]

So that I understand this......

labour change the finance act. We have 3 months to ask for a judicial review but cannot ask until they have enforced it.

So....all they have to do is wait 3 months before doing anything and we have no right to contest.

If anybody can find out if Montp were also late that would be very helpful to set our expectations now.

Anybody fancy a trip over to IOM to see these clowns?