BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[SantaClaus]

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 .

Here you are Alan, I've started a thread just for you:
http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...ml#post1053959

Can you please desist from posting here now please. This thread is for those people and families affected by BN66.

[BolshieBastard]

Here you are Alan, I've started a thread just for you:
http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...ml#post1053959

Can you please desist from posting here now please. This thread is for those people and families affected by BN66.

Here, here. I dont want that piece of excrement posting his filth in this thread.

[nick4notax]

Disguesting....

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.

My sincere sympathies to you and your wife and the very best of luck with your recovery and future.

Words cannot describe how utterly disgusting this rotten government and it's HMRC stooges really are. Here (and I hope those pointless little turds are reading this) the HMRC / government spies (who nose into this forum) can now see first hand the effect they have on normal, hard-working people. Like many, I joined this scheme not to give two-fingers to the tax paying majority, but because IR35 rendered my limited company an over-complicated waste of time. Clearly, the MTM scheme is professionally constructed and very honest, otherwise Labour and HMRC would of closed it long, long ago.

It is time for those HMRC people to hold their hands up and drop this claim for retrospective action; we have done nothing wrong whatsoever. The longer you invent nonsensical reasons to chase us, the more people shall suffer stress-related illnesses. It is also time for us to consider legal proceedings against those government/HMRC people who are culpable liars. I would support any attempts to punish those responsible for this seven year nightmare, if they're proven to have lied, etc.

[TaxDude]

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.

What about another round of letter writing to our MPs - surely at some point the political masters need to call this dog off?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Technical Note 63

I have found out a bit more about this and I'd like to share this with you.

This was one of the key pieces of evidence at the JR. HMRC tried to dismiss it, saying it had been written by a junior member of staff. Even if this were the case, it must have been approved at a senior level because it was circulated to tax offices around the country.

The note was a bulletin issued in July 2002 advising tax offices about the scheme and telling them what to look out for in the 2001/2 tax returns.

It is highly significant for a number of reasons:

1. it describes exactly how the scheme works, and this was 6 months before they'd seen a single tax return
2. there is no mention of the Padmore 1987 legislation being applicable
3. it says they had considered how to challenge the scheme but hadn't been able to come up with anything
4. it says they were aware that several hundred trusts had been set up for the purposes of using the scheme, so they knew it was already widespread
5. they mention that the scheme was being used to circumvent IR35 and was therefore being targeted at a huge audience

It simply beggars belief that they issued this guidance to tax offices and then sat on it for almost 6 years before concocting retrospective legislation.

[Toocan]

Technical Exchange - Issue 63

HMRC tried to dismiss it, saying it had been written by a junior member of staff. Even if this were the case, it must have been approved at a senior level because it was circulated to tax offices around the country.

"Technical Exchange - Issue 63" was produced by HMRC FICO (Financial Intermediaries and Claims Office) and CNR (Centre for Non-Residents) who are experts in this area. The idea that it was in some way written by a junior member of staff is without merit.

[TAF4]

Technical Exchange 63

I understand that this guidance to all tax officers describes in detail exactly how the MP Scheme was structured and why it wasn't caught under UK law of the time.
Since the scheme was only made available some 12 months or so earlier, how did Hector ( ) get all the details before receiving any SA's that were declaring the income?

[Toocan]

I understand that this guidance to all tax officers describes in detail exactly how the MP Scheme was structured and why it wasn't caught under UK law of the time.
Since the scheme was only made available some 12 months or so earlier, how did Hector ( ) get all the details before receiving any SA's that were declaring the income?

We know that SA returns containing treaty claims have been accepted, and we also know that hundreds of Closure Notices were issued prior to s.58 FA 2008 (and therefore could not have been affected by it). This scheme has been in use for a considerable time and that almost certainly includes a period between 1987 and 2001.

Remember the entry in the HMRC manual? That was added after the 1987 change (it stated that schemes similar to Padmore may be possible) - Why? Seems a little strange, doesn't it?

On thought, there are very few reasons - very few indeed.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

What about another round of letter writing to our MPs - surely at some point the political masters need to call this dog off?

We may as well wait for the Judgement and, if it goes in our favour, we should definitely bombard MPs.

[TykeMerc]

We may as well wait for the Judgement and, if it goes in our favour, we should definitely bombard MPs.

Definitely hold off on new letters prior to the judgement.

Obviously meaningful FOI requests are a different matter, but they may be better post judgement.

I'm thrilled for you guys that the 2 days in court appeared to go so well, I see it as a very positive move you're bringing HMRC and their political masters to account for their behaviour.

Outrageous injustice should always be challenged and retrospection is utterly wrong.