BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[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

[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

[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..

[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.....

[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".

[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.

[portseven]

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

Anyone remember?

[OnYourBikeGB]

Yesterday I was watching one of the HMRC's advisors using his iPhone to browse the web (couldn't see what he was looking at though).

Well if thats the case, here's a question or two.

Your new stooge, AJ, was responsible for setting up quite a few tax avoidance schemes. Have you investigated these and closed any down recently? Do these represent a loss to the public revenue? Are the big companies he advised paying the 'normal' rate of tax? You could just ask him. I know he likes to boast about the schemes, I've heard him.

Here's another one, all thos multi-millionaires / billionaires who only pay a few grand to the revenue under your rather generous rules, does this represent a loss to the public purse? Are they paying what you would consider a 'normal' rate of tax?

What about the poor sods who are caught by IR35 who are paying 60% of income on tax? Are they paying the 'normal' rate of tax?

What exactly do you mean by 'normal' Hector? Are the MPs who get lots of tax allowances on their expenses and second home paying 'normal' rates of tax?

I read Singh's bio, I thought here is a man who has defended peoples rights and the rule of law. I know he's a professional doing a job, but I hope he can't sleep at night. Shameful, this is not a dictatorship, Parliament is not and never should be supreme.

[SantaClaus]

Hey Mr HMRC advisor, I'm about to spit on your bald forehead from the upper gallery.

[ManureCreek]

You can use this in your "evidence"

I, and all my friends, are clueless idiots....

BarCapBoyz - you guys(?) are the best! HIstorically you have the most entertaining posts by far.

Actually laughed out loud. Really.