BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[Emigre]

here they go again:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8136458.stm

be interesting to see if this is closed retrospectively...probably not

Isn't that exactly how Timms got his £10 million from Ovum?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Calling all HMRC & Treasury whistleblowers

If you know whose decision it was to let the double tax scheme continue for so many years without taking action, then tip us off. Likewise, if you know who was behind the retrospective legislation, give us their names.

When the brown stuff hits the fan, some of your colleagues may be targeted as scapegoats. Don't let people lower down the chain take the rap for this. Name and shame the civil service managers and directors responsible.

Whilst our anger was initially directed at the people who sent out the letters over the past 6 years, we know the real responsibility lies much higher up. Let them take some of the heat for a change.

Use the following link to send an anonymous email to [email protected]

https://www.awxcnx.de/mm-anon-email.htm

To be on the safe side, don't do this from work.

PS. we would gladly accept any incriminating documents as well

[poppy01]

If you know whose decision it was to let the double tax scheme continue for so many years without taking action, then tip us off. Likewise, if you know who was behind the retrospective legislation, give us their names.

When the brown stuff hits the fan, some of your colleagues may be targeted as scapegoats. Don't let people lower down the chain take the rap for this. Name and shame the civil service managers and directors responsible.

Whilst our anger was initially directed at the people who sent out the letters over the past 6 years, we know the real responsibility lies much higher up. Let them take some of the heat for a change.

Use the following link to send an anonymous email to [email protected]

https://www.awxcnx.de/mm-anon-email.htm

To be on the safe side, don't do this from work.

PS. we would gladly accept any incriminating documents as well

I've thought for a while, there must be someone at hmrc with a conscience, from the hmrcissh1te website its obvious they are demoralised and resentful of the bucketload of changes foisted on them by this government. For once, do the right thing. Why should you take the fall for the decisions of those above you.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

JCHR Report on Section 58

This is better than we could have ever hoped for. There is no other word for it than damning.

JCHR Twentieth Report
Apart from section 58, it also covers Clause 67 of this year's finance bill, which they have judged not to be in breach of the human rights act.
http://www.publications.parliament.u.../133/13302.htm

Section 58 Finance Act 2008
The Committee's review of the legislation.
http://www.publications.parliament.u...3/13304.htm#a5

Letter from JCHR to Stephen Timms
Sent Tuesday 7th July.
http://www.publications.parliament.u...3/13308.htm#a6

[Emigre]

This is better than we could have ever hoped for. There is no other word for it than damning.

JCHR Twentieth Report
Apart from section 58, it also covers Clause 67 of this year's finance bill, which they have judged not to be in breach of the human rights act.
http://www.publications.parliament.u.../133/13302.htm

Section 58 Finance Act 2008
The Committee's review of the legislation.
http://www.publications.parliament.u...3/13304.htm#a5

Letter from JCHR to Stephen Timms
Sent Tuesday 7th July.
http://www.publications.parliament.u...3/13308.htm#a6

DR may I doff my hat to you and your efforts. The wording in these documents is direct and to the point. I love the bit giving that weasel Timms until 21 July to reply!!! Also, that he needs to demonstrate that HMRC have ALWAYS made clear that the scheme does not work!!

I sincerely hope that if the actions of the JCHR represent a turning point that Montpelier, Steed and the like will look very favourably on your pension fund (on an appropriately tax efficient basis of course )

Well done.

[smalldog]

This is better than we could have ever hoped for. There is no other word for it than damning.

JCHR Twentieth Report
Apart from section 58, it also covers Clause 67 of this year's finance bill, which they have judged not to be in breach of the human rights act.
http://www.publications.parliament.u.../133/13302.htm

Section 58 Finance Act 2008
The Committee's review of the legislation.
http://www.publications.parliament.u...3/13304.htm#a5

Letter from JCHR to Stephen Timms
Sent Tuesday 7th July.
http://www.publications.parliament.u...3/13308.htm#a6

cracking stuff DR!

now I wonder who might be feeling like this, nice not to be us for a change:

[TheGadgetMan]

This is better than we could have ever hoped for. There is no other word for it than damning.

JCHR Twentieth Report
Apart from section 58, it also covers Clause 67 of this year's finance bill, which they have judged not to be in breach of the human rights act.
http://www.publications.parliament.u.../133/13302.htm

Section 58 Finance Act 2008
The Committee's review of the legislation.
http://www.publications.parliament.u...3/13304.htm#a5

Letter from JCHR to Stephen Timms
Sent Tuesday 7th July.
http://www.publications.parliament.u...3/13308.htm#a6

DR - This is incredible news...Ive said it before and I'll say it again...a lot of people owe you a great great deal...

there is one question in there that i just cant wait to see TIMMS response...where it asks...

'Please include in your memorandum evidence that, throughout the entire period 1987 to 2008, HMRC has consistently made the case that the avoidance scheme in question does not work.'

Oi, Timms...are we feeling ever so slightly sick?...youve got a JR to defend and now youve got the JCHR on your back...and dont forget, youve got only 12 days to respond before the JCHR boys will be paying you a visit...

this is as good as it gets...well done DR

[smalldog]

oh and if JCHR need to send the boys round I would be more than willing to offer my services...

[helen7]

That is excellent! Thanks DR.

Can Timms get away with just sending them the standard response or is he legally bound to provide all the information they have asked for?

Also, in the event Timms 'fobs them off'; can JCHR force them to reverse the retrospective element?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

That is excellent! Thanks DR.

Can Timms get away with just sending them the standard response or is he legally bound to provide all the information they have asked for?

Also, in the event Timms 'fobs them off'; can JCHR force them to reverse the retrospective element?

The Treasury would not dare fob off this Committee, and you can bet your bottom dollar they will respond promptly.

This is not like MPs writing to them, where they can just pay lip service.

All of this, including the Treasury's response, is a matter of public record which will be admissible in a court of law. This could totally undermine HMRC's defence of the JR.