BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[DonkeyRhubarb]

As for DR's last comment, am I right in thinking that the Revenue has asked for a delay in the JR?

Not exactly. As I understand it, after the JR was granted our legal team put in a request for evidence from HMRC, which I believe should have been provided within 6 weeks. HMRC have applied to the Court for an extension to the end of August. I don't know what this evidence is but, if our FOI requests are anything to go by, I suspect HMRC won't be too keen on handing anything over.

If I was the Treasury I'd be telling HMRC "get your bloody finger out because we can only stall this human rights committee for so long".

One of the sweetest ironies in all of this is that if HMRC had not opposed the initial JR application, then the JR would have happened by now and it couldn't have been torpedoed by the JCHR. I bet that minor victory is looking very hollow now.

[PlaneSailing]

Not exactly. As I understand it, after the JR was granted our legal team put in a request for evidence from HMRC, which I believe should have been provided within 6 weeks. HMRC have applied to the Court for an extension to the end of August. I don't know what this evidence is but, if our FOI requests are anything to go by, I suspect HMRC won't be too keen on handing anything over.

If I was the Treasury I'd be telling HMRC "get your bloody finger out because we can only stall this human rights committee for so long".

One of the sweetest ironies in all of this is that if HMRC had not opposed the initial JR application, then the JR would have happened by now and it couldn't have been torpedoed by the JCHR. I bet that minor victory is looking very hollow now.

I bet they've asked for the evidence that they 'always held the opinion
that the scheme didn't work'.

That might take a long time to find.

Unless you've got a time machine of course.

[BrilloPad]

One of the sweetest ironies in all of this is that if HMRC had not opposed the initial JR application, then the JR would have happened by now and it couldn't have been torpedoed by the JCHR. I bet that minor victory is looking very hollow now.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Post traumatic stress disorder

I don't know if anyone else caught Panorama tonight.

I think HMRC have given me PTSD.

[Taffia]

Please keep them coming.

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/repealofIR35

Done.

[BenniDorm]

Petition Signed....

Keep up the good work...

[BrilloPad]

I don't know if anyone else caught Panorama tonight.

I think HMRC have given me PTSD.

I missed it.

There are a few here suffering from PTSD : but you dont appear to be one of them!

[PlaneSailing]

Mr. Timms.

Quote from everyones favourite MP:

"Most offshore investors already pay the tax that the law requires and it is only fair that everyone respects the rules"

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

And so to "clarify"

Hi All,

Joining up for the first time to add my weight to the BN666 debate. Yep, that's right 666 (sign of the beast or Mr Timms in this case!)

As BN66 is quoted to "clarify" the 1987 legislation then it seems odd that as the dictionary defines "clarify" as "to clear confusion or uncertainty" then this quote is rather interesting:

In 1776 Adam Smith stated in The Wealth of Nations that:
‘the tax which each individual is bound to pay ought to be certain
and not arbitrary. The time of payment, the manner of payment,
quantity to be paid ought to be clear and plain to the contributor
and to every other person. Where it is otherwise every person
subject to the tax is put more or less in the power of the tax
gatherer … the certainty of what each individual ought to pay is in
taxation a matter of so great importance that a very considerable
degree of inequality it appears … is not near so great an evil as a
very small degree of uncertainty’.

How can Hector claim to be able to clarify a tax law that was not confusing or uncertain to start with (according to HMRC)?

If it needs clarifying it was by definition uncertain and confusing? If it was uncertain and confusing how can it be applied as law retrospectively?

Or did I miss something here???

[Emigre]

Hi All,

Joining up for the first time to add my weight to the BN666 debate. Yep, that's right 666 (sign of the beast or Mr Timms in this case!)

As BN66 is quoted to "clarify" the 1987 legislation then it seems odd that as the dictionary defines "clarify" as "to clear confusion or uncertainty" then this quote is rather interesting:

In 1776 Adam Smith stated in The Wealth of Nations that:
‘the tax which each individual is bound to pay ought to be certain
and not arbitrary. The time of payment, the manner of payment,
quantity to be paid ought to be clear and plain to the contributor
and to every other person. Where it is otherwise every person
subject to the tax is put more or less in the power of the tax
gatherer … the certainty of what each individual ought to pay is in
taxation a matter of so great importance that a very considerable
degree of inequality it appears … is not near so great an evil as a
very small degree of uncertainty’.

How can Hector claim to be able to clarify a tax law that was not confusing or uncertain to start with (according to HMRC)?

If it needs clarifying it was by definition uncertain and confusing? If it was uncertain and confusing how can it be applied as law retrospectively?

Or did I miss something here???

Welcome to the forum Tax_Shouldnt_be_taxing. Hector couldn't put it better himself. A great first post.

If I can clarify...Section 58 has caused great evil, great uncertainty in the UK tax system and a very considerable degree of inequality for those being chased for payment. The only certainty is that the authors and "tax gatherers" of this folly will not be in power this time next year.

The wisdom of Adam Smith has stood more or less unchallenged for over two centuries, and yes through the Great Depression, until our current PM, who hails from the same Scottish town, decided to rewrite the philosophy. Thankfully, the only historical memories of Gordon Brown that will exist in 200 years time will be being the most unpopular PM ever and the Chancellor/PM that took the UK into the third world.