BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[Emigre]

<blockbuster stylee>can i have a "d" please - bharb</blockbuster stylee>

Well, if that's right then I cannot see the similarity between the 1987 legislation and our situation. We've all got pre-existing claims but they won't let us have them. Oh, I get it, 1987 wasn't really retrospective since no one was actually retrospectively hit. Amazing what time does.

Who's the new Dr Who?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

<blockbuster stylee>can i have a "d" please - bharb</blockbuster stylee>

A star for you.

All the other statements, except "d", could be applied to Section 58.

But of course, they are the same kind of retrospection.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Quiz

Question 4

The main argument HMRC put forward for opposing the JR application was:

“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 which month did HMRC first make anyone aware of this view?

a) January
b) February
c) August
d) September
e) December

Hint: this is a bit of a trick question

[Tynos]

Question 4

The main argument HMRC put forward for opposing the JR application was:

“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 which month did HMRC first make anyone aware of this view?

a) January
b) February
c) August
d) September
e) December

Hint: this is a bit of a trick question

Wasn't it the 1st of Never?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Wasn't it the 1st of Never?

No, they definitely communicated it for the first time in one of the months listed.

However, the question didn't say the month was necessarily in 1987

Nor how long before BN66 was announced on 12th March 2008.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Larger capacity court room allocated for JR

Just in case anyone missed the earlier post, the Court has agreed to hear our case in one of the bigger court rooms.

So there should be no problem everyone getting.

Well, assuming all 2500 people affected don't turn up.

[smalldog]

Just in case anyone missed the earlier post, the Court has agreed to hear our case in one of the bigger court rooms.

So there should be no problem everyone getting.

Well, assuming all 2500 people affected don't turn up.

and again I want my t-shirt with ur donkey pic on it DR, size medium please!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

and again I want my t-shirt with ur donkey pic on it DR, size medium please!

Happy to supply the original image if you want to get one made up, although it was taken with a crappy digital camera so not sure what the picture quality will be like.

There are loads of websites for custom t-shirts eg.

http://www.vistaprint.co.uk/vp/ns/ea...e&redir=3&rd=4

Are you really sure you want to risk getting mistaken for me, given that HMRC will be there in force?

[smalldog]

Happy to supply the original image if you want to get one made up, although it was taken with a crappy digital camera so not sure what the picture quality will be like.

There are loads of websites for custom t-shirts eg.

http://www.vistaprint.co.uk/vp/ns/ea...e&redir=3&rd=4

Are you really sure you want to risk getting mistaken for me, given that HMRC will be there in force?

on a serious note not sure if i would be allowed in could be deemed offensive...dya reckon Timms would be there?? would quite like to give him a piece of my mind, in a non-threatening way of course officers...

excuse my ignorance of such matters but are there witnesses in a JR? Could he be called to give evidence, or is a JR different from what I see on the box?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

on a serious note not sure if i would be allowed in could be deemed offensive...dya reckon Timms would be there?? would quite like to give him a piece of my mind, in a non-threatening way of course officers...

excuse my ignorance of such matters but are there witnesses in a JR? Could he be called to give evidence, or is a JR different from what I see on the box?

I think there probably is a risk that you could be refused entry wearing that.

As far as I'm aware, only Counsel for each side speak at the hearing.

I doubt Timms would be there but Hartnett might, and possibly one of our "friends" from Manchester special investigations.