BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[Toocan]

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.'

It sounds like the MP has assumed that everything is in order. Perhaps you should write back to him and ask him to actually check. Of course he might be too busy clearing receipts out of his moat to help...

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Actually no. Conservative Shadow Treasury Minister.

Perhaps you should point out to him that his leader David Cameron has written to the JCHR.

I have to say I have not been very impressed by the response of a lot of Tory MPs. Many seem as incapable of independent thinking as the Labour drones.

From some responses I have seen, you wouldn't even think that they were opposed to retrospective tax.

The Liberal Democrat MPs have been the only ones who have been really supportive. I suppose if you were being cynical, you could say they can afford to be non-partisan ie. they're never going to be in power.

[SantaClaus]

Perhaps you should point out to him that his leader David Cameron has written to the JCHR.

I have to say I have not been very impressed by the response of a lot of Tory MPs. Many seem as incapable of independent thinking as the Labour drones.

From some responses I have seen, you wouldn't even think that they were opposed to retrospective tax.

The Liberal Democrat MPs have been the only ones who have been really supportive. I suppose if you were being cynical, you could say they can afford to be non-partisan ie. they're never going to be in power.

On that note, I think anyone writing to their Tory MP should point out Cameron has already written.

They would probably then be happy to tow the party line.

[BrilloPad]

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

First I have heard of it. I will try and get montp to confirm.

[robinhood]

First I have heard of it. I will try and get montp to confirm.

This was from the update from montp (30th jan 09). Actually i misquoted - it said the earliestdate would be Q4 2009

[ASB]

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 am not convinced that is correct. My understand was that once a closure notice has been issued HMRC are entitled to collect. Appealing the CN does not necessarily stop the collection process. Postponement must be applied for. I think in theory HMRC could persue for settlement even whilst the "wider" appeal is being resolved.

However, I can't find anything to state the above - so it could be a complete crock.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I am not convinced that is correct. My understand was that once a closure notice has been issued HMRC are entitled to collect. Appealing the CN does not necessarily stop the collection process. Postponement must be applied for. I think in theory HMRC could persue for settlement even whilst the "wider" appeal is being resolved.

However, I can't find anything to state the above - so it could be a complete crock.

Sorry, I didn't make that clear. Montp applied for postponement at the same time as filing the appeals, and HMRC have accepted this.

[ASB]

Sorry, I didn't make that clear. Montp applied for postponement at the same time as filing the appeals, and HMRC have accepted this.

I believe HMRC can withdraw postponement (or refuse to grant it initially). In this case it's off to a tribunal (or the taxpayer accepts it). The commissioners then rule on the facts - so I do believe that in principle HMRC could press for payment.

HMRC may have concerns if the taxpayer started disposing of assets etc and it looked as though they were trying to put themseleves in the position of not being to pay should HMRC win.

[silver_lining]

DR,

Can you advise where you can view details of the hearing, court listings... location etc.

SL

[DonkeyRhubarb]

DR,

Can you advise where you can view details of the hearing, court listings... location etc.

SL

Listings are only posted late afternoon for the following day. I assume the PwC hearing should appear on the Royal Courts of Justice list tomorrow afternoon.

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/c...rthearings.htm

The hearing won't be listed under Pricewaterhouse but in the names of the appellants. PwC case details can be found here:

http://forums.contractoruk.com/836835-post2782.html