BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[helen7]

No point going down the who is the blame route until we lose. Which we probably wont.

Aren't there too JRs in June? the PWG one next week?

Thinking they are just hearings to see if we can actually get a judicial review....which means no JR for months I expect.

[BrilloPad]

[QUOTE=smalldog;855994]

No point going down the who is the blame route until we lose. Which we probably wont.

QUOTE]

Errr Brillo thats what I said....its last resort contingency plan...

I know : but I was doing the executive summary!

[BrilloPad]

Thinking they are just hearings to see if we can actually get a judicial review....which means no JR for months I expect.

Yes. Very true. I will be drawing my pension by the time this lot is resolved....

[DonkeyRhubarb]

No point going down the who is the blame route until we lose. Which we probably wont.

Aren't there too JRs in June? the PWG one next week?

PwC's is this Wednesday 3rd June @ 10.30

The result will be posted here as soon as it's in.

A couple of people will be attending and taking notes, so we'll also post a summary.

[SantaClaus]

Just received my DPA bundle from HMRC, there's a lot in it and too much to digest in one sitting...

however one thing which is interesting is a doco which shows the years for which enquiries were opened by the compliance section..

I've been in the scheme since late 2001 and remember (its a long time ago) getting letters from HMRC saying they didnt agree with the returns, but can't remember getting an official "we're openening an enquiry", for the early years at least...

Anyway looks like they only opened oficial enquiries into years 2004-5 onwards...

I'm quite surprised by this as, even if we lose (which we won't), then this means that MontP have another avenue of attack on quite a large lump of outstanding wedge i.e. them not opening the enquiry within the timeframe even tho it was fully disclosed on the return....

My understanding is that they have a year to open an enquiry ater the return has been submitted, unless something was willfully withheld or there was evidence of fraud, in which case they can open a 'discovery' enquiry.

the sheet even has a column with the final date for the enquiry to be opened, which barring certain parties jaunting back in time in a tardis are long gone (they've done it once i suppose)

just wondering if other fellow DPA bundle receivers have seen similar or have they had enquiries opened within the correct timeframe ie not "discovery ones" ???

This is very interesting Mr Bollox.

Do you have any other details about this sheet, is it a standard form as I would like to request the same thing from HMRC?

[poppy01]

Thinking they are just hearings to see if we can actually get a judicial review....which means no JR for months I expect.

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.

[orientalist]

[QUOTE=poppy01;856285]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.[/Q]

when enron went belly up as a result of less than desirable behaviour of its officers the US government imposed rules (sarnabes/oxley) on individuals making them responsible for behaviours and compliance for companies - all very laudible, and seems to be creeping into UK BAU.

If government officers behave in a less than desirable manner (could be ministers and expenses or economic representation of facts to parlianment etc.) shouldn't they be held accountable in a similar manner for costs? i understand the US regs result in fines and custodial sentences.

Is a campaign or government poll justified?

Could such legislation be retrospective? Should individuals be held to account to the prevailing letter of the law or spirit of the law?

How would you know who feel about this?

[SantaClaus]

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.

Poppy, I wouldn't worry just yet.

Firstly, there is no sane reason for the JR to be turned down, it is obvious that what HMRC are doing is just plain wrong. Any judge can see that. Of course it could turn out that our judges are as corrupt as our MPs.

If the JR is turned down then it's straight to the ECHR. I believe one of the scheme providers is going straight to the ECHR bypassing a JR anyway.

[bollox]

This is very interesting Mr Bollox.

Do you have any other details about this sheet, is it a standard form as I would like to request the same thing from HMRC?

Dear Mr Claus,

Sheet is headed "View Compliance Summary", it has what I think is a screen reference in the top let hand corner of 'CMP001B'.

There's a further sheet for each of the years where an enquiry has been opened, this has a ref of 'CMP006B' and is headed 'View Compliance History', this has date for opening and closing of the enquiry, its also's got the case owner.

There must be further details on these enquiries somewhere so I'm going to submit a further request and see what comes up...

Hope this helps

Cheers
Mr Bollox

[SantaClaus]

Dear Mr Claus,

Sheet is headed "View Compliance Summary", it has what I think is a screen reference in the top let hand corner of 'CMP001B'.

There's a further sheet for each of the years where an enquiry has been opened, this has a ref of 'CMP006B' and is headed 'View Compliance History', this has date for opening and closing of the enquiry, its also's got the case owner.

There must be further details on these enquiries somewhere so I'm going to submit a further request and see what comes up...

Hope this helps

Cheers
Mr Bollox

Cheers for that! You're the dogs bollox

I'm going to submit a request for that exact form and see what turns up.

Santa