BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[Plonker]

Having viewed all the comments, it seems that the HMRC's arguments are drifting away from the issue: The retrospective nature of BN66.

Oh, and if the mutants at HMRC are reading this....go bounce on a cactus.

[nuffsaid]

I would be interested to hear what bits of this thread were used in court.

Anyone remember?

I'm sure I remember someone saying "I, and all my friends, are clueless idiots"... shortly followed by "suck my noddy".

[CanPayButWouldRatherNot]

I would be interested to hear what bits of this thread were used in court.

Anyone remember?

Was stuff about the fact that *some* were aware of the risks of using the scheme .......risk has a time focus ......

I'd wager that NO_ONE_realised_we'd have_such_a_time_risk with this scheme due to HMRC fannying about.....

[smalldog]

Having viewed all the comments, it seems that the HMRC's arguments are drifting away from the issue: The retrospective nature of BN66.

Oh, and if the mutants at HMRC are reading this....go bounce on a cactus.

yes thats what I thought too, if they are now starting to discuss if the scheme works is that actually the point here??? I thought it wasnt....this is about retro legislation..

[ContractIn]

yes thats what I thought too, if they are now starting to discuss if the scheme works is that actually the point here??? I thought it wasnt....this is about retro legislation..

Thanks all for the updates today.

I queried last night but probably got overlooked with all the other posts, but is the fact that HMRC bypassed the JCHR not an issue here as well? Will this rear its head in court? Or is it a muted point as JCHR decided not to pursue?

Cheers

[poppy01]

Thanks all for the updates today.

I queried last night but probably got overlooked with all the other posts, but is the fact that HMRC bypassed the JCHR not an issue here as well? Will this rear its head in court? Or is it a muted point as JCHR decided not to pursue?
Cheers

This really is going better than I could have possibly hoped. So why am I still nervous

[nuffsaid]

yes thats what I thought too, if they are now starting to discuss if the scheme works is that actually the point here??? I thought it wasnt....this is about retro legislation..

Although proving that the scheme worked under the old wording determines if BN66 is a 'clarification' or in fact a 'modification'.
If the scheme never worked then the retrospectiveness is a moot point.

[poppy01]

Although proving that the scheme worked under the old wording determines if BN66 is a 'clarification' or in fact a 'modification'.
If the scheme never worked then the retrospectiveness is a moot point.

but, thats not what the JR is about at all is it. That was an argument for another day, for the legal challenge that never happened. Why isnt the judge just telling them to get back to the point?

[portseven]

This really is going better than I could have possibly hoped. So why am I still nervous

Maybe the fact that the judge might be taken in by HMRC's arguments, weak as they may be.

They essentially seem to be saying, these are a bunch of tax-dodgers and we want their money, and you can't stand in our way, because we are parliment! Because its only 'fair'

[SantaClaus]

Maybe the fact that the judge might be taken in by HMRC's arguments, weak as they may be.

They essentially seem to be saying, these are a bunch of tax-dodgers and we want their money, and you can't stand in our way, because we are parliment! Because its only 'fair'

I love the way how they always bring nurses into the "fairness" argument, even though millions are being wasted on management consultants for the NHS.

Funny that the case before ours yesterday was a midwife appealing against suspension for forging a doctor's note. The Judge found the case against her.