BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[DonkeyRhubarb]

In the words of Donald Rumsfeld...

There are things they know we know, and there are things they know we don't know.

But...

There are also things they don't know we know.

And there are things they don't know we don't know.

[SantaClaus]

There are things they know we know, and there are things they know we don't know.

But...

There are also things they don't know we know.

And there are things they don't know we don't know.

I'll have some of what you're drinking DR

[weetbix]

Im not sure what the deal with CN's is, hope someone can advise.
Is there anyway to tell if a CN has been issued?.

And what would happen if a CN was posted to an old address and there was no response back to the IR? I read somewhere you have 28 days to lodge an appeal I just wonder what happens if you dont lodge an appeal?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Im not sure what the deal with CN's is, hope someone can advise.
Is there anyway to tell if a CN has been issued?.

And what would happen if a CN was posted to an old address and there was no response back to the IR? I read somewhere you have 28 days to lodge an appeal I just wonder what happens if you dont lodge an appeal?

You can register here to check if any amendments have been made to your tax returns (which would mean CNs have been issued). You can also check/amend your home address and see if Montpelier are listed as your tax advisors.

https://online.hmrc.gov.uk/registration/individual

If you are really worried, then call your tax office and they will be able to immediately check on the system if any CNs have been issued.

[Earlyflash]

Just curious; what happens if the JR is heard before you get a CN?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Just curious; what happens if the JR is heard before you get a CN?

I don't think it makes any difference, since the JR is only considering one person (Huitson) as a test case.

[Plonker]

I wonder if those lovely people at HMRC celebrate xmas?

They will probably spend xmas day trying to figure out how to tax Santa, considering he claims non domiciled tax status.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

The Suo Motu deal is key

Consider HMRC's main defence, and note in particular the use of the word "obviously".

"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."

In other words, they are saying that the 1987 legislation obviously covered our scheme, and that any claims to double tax relief are invalid.

It therefore follows that the users of Suo Motu made claims for tax relief which were also obviously invalid.

Now, why would HMRC grant concessions to someone who was making an obviously invalid claim for tax relief?

In the words of Branningan's newsletter last year:

"Moreover, given that ... forms part of current tax law, HMRC are bound to act in accordance with its provisions."

In other words, HMRC are not permitted to use discretion as to whether they collect the full amount of tax or not. Their remit is simply to collect the taxes that Parliament has stipulated.

So that brings me back to the same question.

Why didn't HMRC collect the full amount of tax/NIC that was due from the Suo Motu users if their claims for relief were obviously invalid?

[bananarepublic]

Consider HMRC's main defence, and note in particular the use of the word "obviously".

"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."

In other words, they are saying that the 1987 legislation obviously covered our scheme, and that any claims to double tax relief are invalid.

It therefore follows that the users of Suo Motu made claims for tax relief which were also obviously invalid.

Now, why would HMRC grant concessions to someone who was making an obviously invalid claim for tax relief?

In the words of Branningan's newsletter last year:

"Moreover, given that ... forms part of current tax law, HMRC are bound to act in accordance with its provisions."

In other words, HMRC are not permitted to use discretion as to whether they collect the full amount of tax or not. Their remit is simply to collect the taxes that Parliament has stipulated.

So that brings me back to the same question.

Why didn't HMRC collect the full amount of tax/NIC that was due from the Suo Motu users if their claims for relief were obviously invalid?

Quite.

A few questions

1) Does "obviously" have any legal meaning at all? It wasn't obvious to those writing their tax manual. Or those who provided the legal opinions to HMRC prior to November 2007, when they discovered their little ruse.

2) What evidence do HMRC have that they provided their guidance in the way they say they did?

3) Why were HMRC unaware of the law in 2003 when they settled with Suo Motu? Or subsequently in their dealings with us. Were they unaware or in actuality did the law not apply?

My understanding is that the Suo Motu settlement was based on the fact that the promoters got a legal opinion saying that the scheme didn't work because of the Dimsey judgement not because of the 1987 legislation. [ Which is "obviously" nonsense because HMRC never turned this argument against us ]

4) Isn't providing tax concessions to one group but not to another group a breach of our Human Rights in itself? Shouldn't we have been offered the same deal?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

A few questions

1) Does "obviously" have any legal meaning at all? It wasn't obvious to those writing their tax manual. Or those who provided the legal opinions to HMRC prior to November 2007, when they discovered their little ruse.

2) What evidence do HMRC have that they provided their guidance in the way they say they did?

3) Why were HMRC unaware of the law in 2003 when they settled with Suo Motu? Or subsequently in their dealings with us. Were they unaware or in actuality did the law not apply?

My understanding is that the Suo Motu settlement was based on the fact that the promoters got a legal opinion saying that the scheme didn't work because of the Dimsey judgement not because of the 1987 legislation. [ Which is "obviously" nonsense because HMRC never turned this argument against us ]

4) Isn't providing tax concessions to one group but not to another group a breach of our Human Rights in itself? Shouldn't we have been offered the same deal?

Good points.

1) There is a lot of evidence of inconsistency but failing to collect all of the tax/nic owing is the most damning.

2) This has been requested by our side.

3) It doesn't matter why HMRC settled, the mere fact that they were willing to offer concessions means that there wasn't a provision of tax law which was clearly applicable.

4) Yes, and part of our case against HMRC is discrimination under article 14.