BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[mossman]

Stroke

I have now suffered a stroke, largely in my view, due to the stress of this case hanging over me for years.

I will not be working again.

I tried to claim state benefit, but they will not pay me anything. Their doctor decided I am not sick enough. The stroke was on the right side of my brain, which does not affect the speech, so I sound quite lucid, even though I know I will not be working in IT, or anything else, again.

This just proves the pointlessness of the state system for anyone other than a professional scrounger. They have stolen hundreds of thousands of pounds from me over the years. For what?

I need us to win, so that I can get my money out of tax deposit where it is earning no interest. The money would mean that my wife and I don't have to live on beans on toast for the next two years until my pension starts.

I was planning to work beyond the start of my pension, for another seven years. Even without IR35, the amount of tax that I paid over that seven years would have far exceeded the amount that HMRC could potentially win from me in this case. Gordon Brown's greed has backfired on him. A goose and golden eggs come to mind.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

The Time Lords

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).

Well stated Toocan. Indeed, as you look more closely at BN66 and the use of words such as "intention", "will" and "as always having affect", it is clear that this is simply untrue. HMRC dropped the ball. They knew it and had no idea of what to do about it. So they got BN66 in as the "nuclear option" and thought that we'd all roll over.

We know that HMRC knew the scheme did not breach 1987. We know that HMRC knows that we know. And whilst these words sound like a Rumsfeld moment, what they didn't know was how much we would do to know this. It seems the only people who who are in denial are those who dreamt (or nightmared) up BN66. I hope the Judge at the JR can "see through" this charade.

Imagine if sanity was restored and someone in authority said "hang on a minute, what are we doing changing history? What's done is done. Learn from the past and apply it to the future". I'm rather concerned that someone in a small BN66 style office is trying to figure out "if I went back in time and killed my father before I was born would I be able to go back in time to kill him?" Well the answer appears to be "yes" providing it was before 1987 and after FA2008! Go figure....

[TaxDude]

I have now suffered a stroke, largely in my view, due to the stress of this case hanging over me for years.

I will not be working again.

I tried to claim state benefit, but they will not pay me anything. Their doctor decided I am not sick enough. The stroke was on the right side of my brain, which does not affect the speech, so I sound quite lucid, even though I know I will not be working in IT, or anything else, again.

This just proves the pointlessness of the state system for anyone other than a professional scrounger. They have stolen hundreds of thousands of pounds from me over the years. For what?

I need us to win, so that I can get my money out of tax deposit where it is earning no interest. The money would mean that my wife and I don't have to live on beans on toast for the next two years until my pension starts.

I was planning to work beyond the start of my pension, for another seven years. Even without IR35, the amount of tax that I paid over that seven years would have far exceeded the amount that HMRC could potentially win from me in this case. Gordon Brown's greed has backfired on him. A goose and golden eggs come to mind.

Mossman - sorry to hear about your stroke. For your sake and all our sake I hope this issue is resolved in our favour quickly

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Mossman - sorry to hear about your stroke. For your sake and all our sake I hope this issue is resolved in our favour quickly

I am really sorry to hear that too. Over the past year I have heard from many people whose mental/physical health has suffered because of this, and whose lives will never be the same again.

Even if we win the case, it can't undo the suffering which has been inflicted over the past 2 years. Broken marriages can't be put back together, and we can't retrospectively put our lives back to where they were before BN66, as though it never happened.

Therefore, for many of us, winning is no longer enough. We want the people responsible brought to account.

There are various avenues open to us. For example, as a start, we could refer the matter to the Parliamentary Ombudsman who investigates injustices perpetrated by public authorities. I will also talk to our legal team to see what options are available in law for us to seek redress.

Mark my word, one way or another, those resposible for this injustice will be made to pay.

[SantaClaus]

I too am sorry to hear Mossman and wish you as much of a recovery as you can be expected to make.

This is why we need to stick together on this forum. There may come a time as DR suggests that we will seek legal redress. At that point we wil be looking to raise funds from a few thousand angry people.

[srhcompcon]

Hear hear, but lets win this one first though.

[Alan Jones]

we agree !!

Although there are some similarities between your situation and our's, there is one major difference. We are up against the State. I don't know if you have ever seen the film the Terminator but that cyborg is HMRC. They cannot be bargained or reasoned with, and they absolutely will not stop until we are screwed into the ground.

Montpelier are a commercial company. I am aware that Mr Gittins has a fierce reputation but at the end of the day he is also a businessman. It doesn't sound like there's anything in it financially for Montpelier to pursue you. And you have already stated that there is no gain in it for you either.

Don't you think negotiation/reconciliation would be a better approach than more lengthy litigation? (And by the way, no-one has prompted me to suggest this.)

There is surely a danger if you continue down your current path that it could blight many more years of your life and cause a further deterioration in your health. You won't have made many friends gatecrashing the JR but I believe it's never too late to change course.

HMRC will show us no leniency or mercy, and we have no choice but to continue fighting to save our families. But I have to ask...

Is "fighting to the bitter end" really your only option when that "end" could be financial ruin or worse?

DR - you are correct except that Montpelier/Gittins have thrown commerciality out of the window. They know they will never recover the money they have spent and continue to spend - so its not a commercial situation.

It is my view that he wants to see me/my family "ruined" at any/all cost [sound familiar !!]. I have tried without success - on several occasions - to negotiate a sensible conclusion to hostilities .

[TaxDude]

Stopping HMRC Appealling the JR

Just thinking ahead, and assuming we win. Is there anything we can do to STOP/DISCOURAGE HMRC from launching an appeal?

[northernSoul]

"Even if the UK HR Act was repealed or modified it will not change the ECHR and so our rights would be protected. If I recall we were memebers of ECHR long before the EU - it would take a new treaty or a war to remove us from this obligation."

The trouble is the ECHR is only weakly incorporated in English Law. The contrast is with the EEC Treaty Act 1972 which strongly incorporated the EU Treaty into English Law. The 1972 Act states that an English Court must effectively fail to recognise any legislative measure that is not compatible with the EU Treaty. Thus the Commission, for example, when it issues direct regulations, produces law which has immediate effect in English Courts and which overrides any extant English law in the area - as long as the area is that which was agreed under the limited remit of the EU Treaty.

It is important to understand that this is NOT true of the ECHR which is only weakly incorporated. The ECHR is incorporated an 'interpretive guideline' only for English courts and is, de facto, a set of rules in which courts and public podies must follow. However, unlike the ECJ , the superior court of the EU Treaty, the EctHR does NOT produce binding decisions on English courts. The ECtHR has limited influence on the English court system and no formal constitutional exists at all.

Thus you have no rights in an English court as a consequence of a ECtHR decision at all. None. You have a 'persuasive decision'

I should point out here I'm an IT Bod with a law degree, so I'm on your side. But I do recall most 'tractors being a bunch of euro-bashers in general, who would have moaned and groaned if the ECHR has been strongly incorporated like the EU Treaty - they even moaned and groaned at the relatively timid 1998 HR act . But the Little Englanders had their day in 1998 when the Treaty was not fully incorporated into English law and a lot of people, not just contractors, will end up paying the price.

[centurian]

Just thinking ahead, and assuming we win. Is there anything we can do to STOP/DISCOURAGE HMRC from launching an appeal?

I doubt there's anything you can do - after all it isn't their money that they are spending...

I think the only thing that will cause them to pause for thought is if the judge comes down clearly on your side and the commentary to his judgement shows that HMRC don't have a single leg to stand on.