BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[DonkeyRhubarb]

anybody (DR?) got a good web site to find the details of the times/court room etc for next week ?
(googled "old bailey" but got all sorts of garbage)

This is updated late afternoon to reflect the following day's proceedings.

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/list_admin.htm

If you check next Monday evening it should give the court details. The case is

Huitson v HM Revenue & Customs

[silver_lining]

For information.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...incoming-64791

It is not entirely clear whether the figures refer to the number of individuals who received CNs or the total number of CNs issued.

The thing which really stands out is the 300 in 2006.

Montpelier are only aware of 4 people receiving CNs in 2006 ie. the 4 test cases who would have received around a dozen CNs in total.

Does anyone have any theories as to what this 300 figure is about?

Can only be 1 of 3; 1 its complete tripe. 2 individuals receiving the CNs had nothing to do with MP scheme.... 3rd outside chance, MP not received CNs and/ or users did not advise MP.....

[PlaneSailing]

For information.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...incoming-64791

It is not entirely clear whether the figures refer to the number of individuals who received CNs or the total number of CNs issued.

The thing which really stands out is the 300 in 2006.

Montpelier are only aware of 4 people receiving CNs in 2006 ie. the 4 test cases who would have received around a dozen CNs in total.

Does anyone have any theories as to what this 300 figure is about?

The only thing I can think of is the SM members got their CNs late.
If they ever had investigations opened??

[DonkeyRhubarb]

The only thing I can think of is the SM members got their CNs late.
If they ever had investigations opened??

This did cross my mind, since we know 148 SM clients settled and most would have been for 2 tax years (2001/2 & 2002/3).

2x148 is roughly 300 (assuming 300 is the number of CNs, and not users)

However, Jones approached HMRC before the 2001/2 returns were due, and as far as I'm aware no enquiries were ever opened. I believe the settlement reached in March 2003 was "by contract", so no CNs would have been issued.

300 all happening in one year definitely points to an organised settlement, especially when you compare it to the other years.

2003 - 9
2004 - 4
2005 - 0
2006 - 300
2007 - 22

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Other schemes

Apart from property developers and the Contractor schemes we know about, there were other versions of the scheme operating.

For example, one was being offered to agency workers (eg. nurses) in the NHS and Care Homes, where the sums involved would be lower.

Perhaps one of these schemes agreed to settle.

[helen7]

Apart from property developers and the Contractor schemes we know about, there were other versions of the scheme operating.

For example, one was being offered to agency workers (eg. nurses) in the NHS and Care Homes, where the sums involved would be lower.

Perhaps one of these schemes agreed to settle.

When I was sold the scheme I was told that a couple of premier league football teams use it.

This could have just been sales talk though.

[Emigre]

The only thing I can think of is the SM members got their CNs late.
If they ever had investigations opened??

The FOI response states in the last sentence that there were also enquiries "settled by contract" which I think would cover the SM scheme.

That leaves us still looking for 296 people with few ideas.

Helen7, in terms of Premier Football Clubs I wish I could have put £100k through per week...

[Slobbo]

Maybe the 300ish closure notices don't have anything to do with our "scheme" and have been mixed in.

What did they call it before it was s58?

If it didn't have a name how did they find it on there systems to respond to your FOI request?

If they did have a name for it why did it take so long to "clarify" it?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

That leaves us still looking for 296 people with few ideas.

Perhaps there was a version of the scheme used by senior civil servants or MPs that was quietly closed down?

I don't think we've got "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" out of HMRC yet.

[silver_lining]

Perhaps there was a version of the scheme used by senior civil servants or MPs that was quietly closed down?

I don't think we've got "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" out of HMRC yet.

I can live without the truth if justice prevails