BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[Squicker]

Hello

Hi there

I am delurking after reading all this excellent information

I was also in MP and so have some concerns over this whole matter.

Does anyone know specifically, and can safely state here, the particular bit of human rights legislation we feel the IR have breached?

My assumption is - and this could be flawed! - that it is not specifically in the interests of the government as a whole to bankrupt people. Bankrupt people cannot ply their trade and will be a burden on the state as they'll probably end up claiming various benefits. I suspect it is in their interests to provide a strong incentive to pay more tax, one which is well served by putting the fear of god into people by this persecution of a handful of high earners. If that task can be completed without causing bankruptcy then all the better for then, no one likes a zero sum game.

Come what may, I have a fascinating career, working with intelligent people on cutting edge projects that have filled me with huge amounts of satisfaction, and I can hold my head up high as I haven't done anything 'wrong', as such. If I worked for the Revenue, knowing I was maligned by all, in a dead end job (let's face it, what options have you got if you are a pen pusher there) on a poor - average wage made from putting normal people through hell, then I'd probably not be feeling great in myself!

Regards

Ben

[Toocan]

HMRC to nominate King Pyrrhus as their role model!

I received an update from Montpelier today – I won’t post the text of the letter because everyone on the scheme will receive the letter. No point in giving information to the other side.

It would appear that HMRC have no case at all. In fact, it looks like HMRC are behaving politically rather than legally. This might explain why they have lost so many cases in the zanu-labour years.

I think the action now is to bat off any attacks by HMRC – they are not going to have much sprit in them because they know this is a lost cause for them. Could this be why some tax offices aren’t bothering to issue closure notices? (ie it’s a waste of everyone’s time)

Support Montpelier, follow their lead to a fair resolution.

By the way, did anyone see Mugabe on tv this week? He says he as “arrested” Cholera and so it’s not a problem anymore! I wonder if he would be good enough to “arrest” cancer, heart disease and HIV?

[mossman]

How long?

In three years time I will receive a lump sum from my pension scheme and an annual pension. The amount that you-know-which-piece-of-human-garbage is trying to steal from me is equal to the whole of the lump sum, plus the first five years pension, and that's as it stands today, without further interest being added. My question is: is this bulls**t likely to be resolved by then, or is it likely to drag on for more than three years? Even when we are successful with the JR, the scumbags are likely to use every trick they can to drag it out indefinitely, so that when we are 95 we still will not know where we stand. Where will our human rights be then?

[SantaClaus]

Just had a reply to a letter I wrote on BN66 from Stephen Timms via my MP Jeremy Corbyn.

Its the standard reply that a previous poster had with comments such as:

"Retrospective Legislation does not in itself contravene the European Human Rights act".

Could anyone confirm if this is indeed true or whether I can ask my MP to take Stephen Timms to task on this?

Thanks

[TheFaQQer]

"Retrospective Legislation does not in itself contravene the European Human Rights act".

Could anyone confirm if this is indeed true or whether I can ask my MP to take Stephen Timms to task on this?

Thanks

Not read it in detail, but this article (Retrospectivity and the Human Rights Act 1998) might tell you the answer.

Also, the Marks & Spencer case regarding VAT payments and the change in legislation, might be relevant in answering your question.

[BrilloPad]

Received yet another SA Statement today I think this is the third.

The overall figure seems to be getting smaller.
Payment due of 8.52 which is dated 22/10/08 for interest owing on a 31/01/05 balance.

Apart fom that still sat with the CN.
Another colleague received his CN last week.

Did you forward the CN onto montp?

[BrilloPad]

Hi there

I am delurking after reading all this excellent information

I was also in MP and so have some concerns over this whole matter.

Does anyone know specifically, and can safely state here, the particular bit of human rights legislation we feel the IR have breached?

My assumption is - and this could be flawed! - that it is not specifically in the interests of the government as a whole to bankrupt people. Bankrupt people cannot ply their trade and will be a burden on the state as they'll probably end up claiming various benefits. I suspect it is in their interests to provide a strong incentive to pay more tax, one which is well served by putting the fear of god into people by this persecution of a handful of high earners. If that task can be completed without causing bankruptcy then all the better for then, no one likes a zero sum game.

Come what may, I have a fascinating career, working with intelligent people on cutting edge projects that have filled me with huge amounts of satisfaction, and I can hold my head up high as I haven't done anything 'wrong', as such. If I worked for the Revenue, knowing I was maligned by all, in a dead end job (let's face it, what options have you got if you are a pen pusher there) on a poor - average wage made from putting normal people through hell, then I'd probably not be feeling great in myself!

Regards

Ben

Many thanks for de-lurking

What years were you in the montp scheme? Are you still using them?

We still awaiting HMRC sjkeleton arguments. I bet they are the usual rubbish......

[SantaClaus]

Not read it in detail, but this article (Retrospectivity and the Human Rights Act 1998) might tell you the answer.

Also, the Marks & Spencer case regarding VAT payments and the change in legislation, might be relevant in answering your question.

Thanks for the link. Although a very weighty document.
I'll try and read it later.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

HMRC are winning the war

It would appear that HMRC have no case at all. In fact, it looks like HMRC are behaving politically rather than legally. This might explain why they have lost so many cases in the zanu-labour years.

HMRC know they will probably lose eventually but I don't think they are bothered. I have long believed that this legislation was not about us per se but about sending a message to scheme promoters and potential punters, and judging by other threads on CUK it is working. Every time someone asks about a scheme, people reply saying look at those poor buggers on the BN66 thread.

Even when they lose the JR, they will appeal to try and drag it out as long as possible to maximise the negative PR.

In a way, HMRC will (rightly IMO) view defeat as a victory because they will have put the majority of people off using schemes.

Talking about Mugabe, did you see this? Unbelievable.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7780728.stm

[BrilloPad]

Still lots of people using loan schemes. It will be interesting to see how HMRC attack those.