BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[smalldog]

Posting points a & b would do no harm.

Wonder if HMRC are building a case that basically we arent human so ECHR doesnt apply to us, were dogs after all....Do Canines have rights, in this day and age probably more than humans, they can be put down if suffering too much..

[BrilloPad]

Posting points a & b would do no harm.

““We can advise you that HMRC has responded to the Judicial Review proceedings stating that Section 58 is not incompatible with the UK Human Rights Act for the following main reasons:-

(a) There is no unfairness to taxpayers who used the scheme because they sought to reduce their tax liabilities below what other people not using the scheme paid.

(b) HMRC had made both the general public and professional market well aware of its view in 1987 that “partner” and “member of a firm” included any person entitled to a share of the profits of a partnership. HMRC say that this obviously includes a life tenant of a trust where the trustee is a partner.

[nuffsaid]

Are you all actively using montp? It is possible it takes a time to send out 1500/2000 letters : or royal mail messed up?

I quit with MP this year (at the loan scheme point), the guy that received his letter quit in 2005.
I'll give it a little longer before I speak to MP, I guess it isn't really that important I was just feeling left out [sob].

PS. That's "sob" as in crying, not son of a ...

[nuffsaid]

(a) There is no unfairness to taxpayers who used the scheme because they sought to reduce their tax liabilities below what other people not using the scheme paid.

So if I use a buy one get one free scheme with my next Tesco yoguart purchase, does that mean I'm reducing my tax liability compared to those that shop at Sainsburys, and thus I forego my human rights?

Damn yoguarts

[nuffsaid]

PS. Thanks BP for posting the snippet

[poppy01]

““We can advise you that HMRC has responded to the Judicial Review proceedings stating that Section 58 is not incompatible with the UK Human Rights Act for the following main reasons:-

(a) There is no unfairness to taxpayers who used the scheme because they sought to reduce their tax liabilities below what other people not using the scheme paid.

(b) HMRC had made both the general public and professional market well aware of its view in 1987 that “partner” and “member of a firm” included any person entitled to a share of the profits of a partnership. HMRC say that this obviously includes a life tenant of a trust where the trustee is a partner.

Seriously, is that it?

Considering the havoc they intend to cause to our lives, they could at least try to justify what they're trying to do. This smacks of a 'cant be arsed' attitude to me. If they dont believe what they are saying they should drop the whole f**ing thing.

[Emigre]

So if I use a buy one get one free scheme with my next Tesco yoguart purchase, does that mean I'm reducing my tax liability compared to those that shop at Sainsburys, and thus I forego my human rights?

Damn yoguarts

Lord Tomlin stated in Duke of Westminster (1936) 19 TC 490 – every man is entitled, if he can, to order his affairs so that the tax attaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it otherwise would be

Hope you're on good bacteria...

"Nuffsaid"

[MuddyFunster]

Why don't they just go down the "well my dad's bigger than your dad" route and be done with it? That has more legal clout than statement A.

[BrilloPad]

So if I use a buy one get one free scheme with my next Tesco yoguart purchase, does that mean I'm reducing my tax liability compared to those that shop at Sainsburys, and thus I forego my human rights?

Damn yoguarts

You should send that onto our Barrister for the JR : step forward DonkeyRhubarb!

[CanPayButWouldRatherNot]

I did use montp mortgages : generally went very smoothly. Getting confirmation of earnings from NW/JD/TQ was seemless.

I too used them and found Mike to be very helpful (Michael Alldread) ....highly recommended.

CPBWRN