BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[smalldog]

could this become a criminal matter?? Im assuming if someone has told a big enough untruth its treason and they could absolutely get prosecuted...I for one would be more than happy to see a few select people get dragged through the criminal courts, I for one dont want someone representing me in a government who is so untrustworthy..Im also pretty sure this is the last thing Mr Brown would want so close to his election campaign!!!

[OnYourBikeGB]

I have heard from our legal team that it's possible we could get a judgement within the next 2-3 weeks, but in any event before the end of February.

PWC's hearing in the Court of Appeal is scheduled for 9th March. I believe this is where they are appealing the High Court's decision to refuse their JR application. If you recall, their case involves a different argument to Human Rights.

2-3 weeks seems quite short. I know it is very easy to read too much into these things, but I'm going to let myself get a little carried away. I'd imagine if the judge was seriously considering the HMRC strategy, that struck at the core of how the legislative process operates, he'd need a bit longer than that.

Whatever happens, especially with the damning evidence that has come to light during the case, I think we are in for a very interesting time over the next short while. I make no secret of the fact that I want revenge for all that we have been put through. Jobs should go, and hector and his ministerial buddies should be taught a lesson. They have lied. They have deceived. Even if we win, they have inflicted scars on peoples lives, are we expected to forget and to forgive, and leave them to do it to someone else? If there is any justice, they should be punished.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Good find

I like it!

Also found this nice little note, bye bye people!

Very good. And add to that the Civil Service Code makes it clear that Parliament must not knowingly be misled.

Well if by chance HMRC had something in writing from a few years ago which stated that the scheme could or might not be liable to tax, then they knew. So even if a Minister says "not me Guv, I didn't know", then it is hard to consider that the CSC gets them off the hook since Civil Servents are obliged to take the same care and the CSC does refer to Parliamentary Committees specifically (like the Treasury Select Committee).

So and without prejudice, if it were proven that HMRC knew the scheme could not be liable to tax or at least believed it unlikely a few years ago, and if that was even considered this implies by association that Padmore (1987) does not apply, then there is a case that whether the Civil Service or a Minister knew this, when the statements were made to the TSC and described in Hansard for all and sunder to read, it seems a little difficult to suggest that Parliament was not misled.

And where retrospection is applied, and by the acknowledgement of the Government, retrospection is taken very seriously and not used willy nilly, then there seems to be a rather grandiose faux pas on their behalf that such knowledge about the scheme status was not brought up in the briefing and Committee stages of BN66.

To request Royal Assent on a matter such as this does open up various avenues of interest. This one has some way to run yet.

Oh and just in case such evidence did exist, authorities might try the "it was a junior person who wrote it so it's not taken seriously", then lets have a dicussion in public about how that sits with the "dodgy dossier" over the WMD story. Taxi!

[BrilloPad]

This is my final post on CUK. Would like to wish everyone here the best of luck - but be very careful what you post here. I was shopped by Admin and you could just as easily be shopped.

[Richard Splash]

Who created the lie?

Timms and Kennedy told Parliament things that, it would appear, were not true. But did they know they were telling lies, or were they lied to too?
.
.
.
Somewhere along the chain someone created the lie. It wasn't the local tax inspectors - they followed their guidance (for the most part).

Was it the Foreign and Trusts HMRC people?
Was it the SCI department in Liverpool?
Was in someone in the Whitehall department?
Was in Hartnett?
Who signed off the section of the Finance Bill?
Was it Kennedy and Timmms?

Isn't it important to weed out corruption before it spoils the entire department? One bad apple....

I think we are a little beyond one bad apple here... its a labyrinth of rot..

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

The view of the Institute of Chartered Accountants

A rather well respected body had this to say about BN66:

http://www.icaew.com/index.cfm/route...ga/en/Home/pdf

Don't think you can add much more to the story can you?

Retrospection is an interesting animal. As best as I can remember and someone correct me if I'm wrong, after Padmore even though the legislation passed was retrospective to 1947 I don't recall anyone being taxed retrospectively on the original 1987 legislation or FA 1987 (2).

So are we also being discriminated against as a result?

[Toocan]

Gushing torrent

A rather well respected body had this to say about BN66:

http://www.icaew.com/index.cfm/route...ga/en/Home/pdf

Don't think you can add much more to the story can you?

Retrospection is an interesting animal. As best as I can remember and someone correct me if I'm wrong, after Padmore even though the legislation passed was retrospective to 1947 I don't recall anyone being taxed retrospectively on the original 1987 legislation or FA 1987 (2).

So are we also being discriminated against as a result?

I can add something:

It is worth noting that the then Treasury Minister, now Lord Lamont, gave an undertaking on s.62 F2A 1987 that not only those with judicial decisions would be protected from the retrospective change, but that ALL those with claims would be protected. The effect of this was to prevent “windfalls” to those who had not made a claim, but to allow those who had made a claim to keep any benefit they had gained.

This government were well warned that what they were doing was wrong in law. If our Parliament had known the details that we now know, back in 2008, then it seems highly unlikely that they would have approved s.58 FA 2008 ss4-5.

I am doubtful that the intention of Parliament will be considered in this case. The “intention” is only considered if a Parliamentary Act is unclear in its construction. The legislation that s.58 FA 2008 altered (which started as s.62 F2A 1987 I think) is already crystal clear in it’s meaning. In fact, the language was later altered to ensure its scope was no more than intended (this came from a note to an amendment see http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2005...3/05en05-r.htm change 145).

[administrator]

This is my final post on CUK. Would like to wish everyone here the best of luck - but be very careful what you post here. I was shopped by Admin and you could just as easily be shopped.

http://forums.contractoruk.com/1053754-post11.html

The post above shows why this is not true. I have found the PMs I sent Brillo at the time and will happily forward them to anyone who wants to see them as I have Brillo's permission in a previous post to publish them.

As others have said, we will not pass your details on to anyone unless our hand is forced. We can only be forced to give over information to the police, HMRC or anyone else if a court order is obtained. A court order will only be granted if it is felt a crime could be solved or prevented with the information. So be sensible in what you post here and elsewhere.

Apart from that do rest assured that your private information is treated with the utmost care here. We have not, and will not, pass information on to the police, or any other body, unless we have a court order forcing us to do so. Help us out and don't post things that will potentially get yourself into trouble or waste our time in clearing up the ensuing mess.

Back on topic now without any further distractions I hope.

[OnYourBikeGB]

This is my final post on CUK. Would like to wish everyone here the best of luck - but be very careful what you post here. I was shopped by Admin and you could just as easily be shopped.

Personally, I don't want to get in the middle of this row, but I do know that this forum will be weaker without BPs drive and determination. I'd like him to reconsider and the also the admins if at all possible. I have found this forum invaluable, and we are on the verge of great change, for better or worse. We are stronger together. After all that we have had to put up with and have forced on us over the past 7 years, and for the past few years where we have stood together and taken the fight back to them, why divide ourselves now? I'd have PMed you if I could have BP, but seeing as I can't, I'd ask you to reconsider.

[SantaClaus]

This is my final post on CUK. Would like to wish everyone here the best of luck - but be very careful what you post here. I was shopped by Admin and you could just as easily be shopped.

I too am sorry to see Brillo go. He has done a lot for this forum and he also happens to be a good mate. I'm sorry Admin, but I think you were a bit harsh.

The virtual Brillo is dead, but the real one is alive and well. This is only a forum after all!

I look forward to meeting with you Brillo for coffee shortly and then a victory celebration if we win the JR.