BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[bombaycat]

Thanks everyone

Thanks everyone for attending in person and giving us all updates. I'm stuck at work, but not far away, I'll send positive vibes.
Roll on today's hearing - hoping for more judge raising eyebrows at Singh!!

[portseven]

Something that I am curious about which others have also raised. If the HMRC argument is that Parliment can do what it likes and balls to the courts (and so the JR) why even bother turning up to the JR? Why not just stop it and save the taxpayer some money rather than waste it on an expensive but unnecessary QC???!!!

[Slobbo]

Have we got a scribe for today? Keen to get a full a picture as possible.

[elpinar]

sorry to ask a few stupid questions .... but ....

does the judge rule today or do we have to wait for an answer?


when we win .... what is the next step as I assuem that this doesnt overturn the law?

[Fog]

Today

Great to meet so many people yesterday and thanks for the drink Emigre!

I will be trying to get in for the afternoon session as I have a sick child to look after this morning.

I found yesterday very hard going based on the extensive legal detail. To be expected. I found our respresentation to be very competent. Following on from Santa's update I must say I felt that HMRC's tack of 'we will be retrospective if we want to be' a little strange and as Taxing has said - it seems more akin to Terrorism Law.

DR - fab to meet you - and good luck if you get chance to speak to our legal team.

Fog

[srhcompcon]

Day 2 in the Big Brother Courtroom

George Orwell would have been proud!

"We have the right to go back and change history. It is the will of parliament! Rewrite the history books"

Just a shame padmore wasn't in 1984

[robinhood]

does the judge rule today or do we have to wait for an answer?


when we win .... what is the next step as I assuem that this doesnt overturn the law?

The judge could rule today but it could take a few weeks

[silver_lining]

No, it was always patently clear to a blind dog that that 1987 ruling didn't apply; the issue was the HMRC claimed that it did, and that BN66 was merely a 'clarification' rather than a change in the law. The judge has cleared that one up and so HMRC now have to justify 'changing' rather than 'clarifying' the law.

Whether this actually makes any difference is up for the judge to decide.

If this is the case, then it becomes a new law enacted to tackle the scheme that has been made retrospective 8 years into the game.....

surely surely... he cannot let this happen.......

its now beyond a joke.

[poppy01]

If this is the case, then it becomes a new law enacted to tackle the scheme that has been made retrospective 8 years into the game.....

surely surely... he cannot let this happen.......

its now beyond a joke.

This astounds me. The gloves have finally come off and HMRC stand there naked of any reasoned argument, 'we are the government, YOU DO WHAT WE SAY....', if they seriously think I'm going to pay up, whatever happens, they can f**k themselves. I'll do jail time first.

[SantaClaus]

This astounds me. The gloves have finally come off and HMRC stand there naked of any reasoned argument, 'we are the government, YOU DO WHAT WE SAY....', if they seriously think I'm going to pay up, whatever happens, they can f**k themselves. I'll do jail time first.

You'll be in good company Poppy!

Billy Brag - Why I'm withholding my tax
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ax-rbs-bonuses