BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Time machines

Part 8 of the replay says 'those affected by the change in the legislation' - so are they now admitting it's a change & giving up on the 'clarification' cobblers? I like the first sentence about transparency & openness with regard to informing public opinion - they could easily have added an extra bit - 'that's why we are so keen to avoid it'.

Actually, reading Part 8 & 9 the use of the word "closing" in the context of the sentences in question, very much seems to imply that BN66 was the instrument to close down the loop-hole. I thought that was done in 1987 according to HMRC. Surely you can't close it twice? Also, Part 9 does actually confirm that the legislation closing the loop hole is "now complete". Nothing implies that there is retrospection in the legislation except the tax bills!

[MissPiggy]

I have just spoken to MP, and there is no need to panic. They have had a few late ones before and HMRC have accepted all of them.

However, don't delay. Call them straight away.

Thanks to both of you .. MP have it now .. heartrate a little steadier this morning.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

"I should add that the Government took full account of the Convention rights before introducing the legislation in question, and considers that the legislation is fully compliant with those rights".

Let's split this into two.

(1)
I do believe that they must have considered the Convention rights angle in some detail because their response to this FOI acknowledges that documents exist which refer to HR.
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...8_human_rights

The following FOI should reveal the extent of this documentation.
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...f_human_rights

(2)
We will probably never find out what advice the Government was really given and by whom. Maybe they just relied on a dodgy legal opinion obtained by HMRC, in which case HMRC have dropped them right in it.

However, one thing we can be certain of is that they weren't interested in seeking an impartial opinion, otherwise they would have consulted the very Committee set up by Parliament to scrutinise such matters ie. the JCHR.

At the end of the day, it is all academic because none of the people responsible will ever be held to account.

Timms won't be around in 9 months time. Government ministers are responsible for policy which conveniently lets HMRC and Treasury officials off the hook. Even Brannigan and his immediate superiors won't be rebuked for causing this mess.

[PlaneSailing]

Let's split this into two.

(1)
I do believe that they must have considered the Convention rights angle in some detail because their response to this FOI acknowledges that documents exist which refer to HR.
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...8_human_rights

The following FOI should reveal the extent of this documentation.
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...f_human_rights

...
At the end of the day, it is all academic because none of the people responsible will ever be held to account.

Timms won't be around in 9 months time. Government ministers are responsible for policy which conveniently lets HMRC and Treasury officials off the hook. Even Brannigan and his immediate superiors won't be rebuked for causing this mess.

The document will probably be contain an exchange like this:

'Do you think we should consider Human Rights on this dubious
retrospective law?'

'Nah, stuff em'

[Emigre]

Timms won't be around in 9 months time.

Even Brannigan and his immediate superiors won't be rebuked for causing this mess.

We currently seem to live in a world where Mandy is God, where Liars, Cheats, and Obfuscates are rewarded for their efforts whilst law abiding tax avoiders are treated exactly the same (bar 10%) as people who deliberately evade taxes.

10% does not seem a very clinical difference. Given that Govt sets the tone of what is and is not acceptable, are they encouraging us to EVADE taxes? Or did I miss something?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Idea

The Treasury are refusing to release the documents they hold on s58, under Freedom of Information, on the grounds that they claim it would not be in the public interest.

So how about if a whole load of us requested these documents?

Would anyone else be willing to submit an FOI request using this (scroll down to form at bottom)? You need to register on the site.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/new/19

I am happy to coordinate this by providing a different wording of the request to everyone so we don't get any identical requests.

I can't promise it will work but nothing ventured...

[seadog]

We currently seem to live in a world where Mandy is God, where Liars, Cheats, and Obfuscates are rewarded for their efforts whilst law abiding tax avoiders are treated exactly the same (bar 10%) as people who deliberately evade taxes.

10% does not seem a very clinical difference. Given that Govt sets the tone of what is and is not acceptable, are they encouraging us to EVADE taxes? Or did I miss something?

The 10% relates to a penalty not the amount of tax to be paid.

Those who "evaded" tax will have to pay the full back tax and interest plus another 10%.

In our case becuse it was all put on SA forms it is not tax evasion but so called "tax avoidance" and thus no penalty is being applied.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

FOI request thread

Check out this new thread.

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...i-request.html

[TykeMerc]

Done DR, can only hope that you get a result

[Emigre]

The 10% relates to a penalty not the amount of tax to be paid.

Those who "evaded" tax will have to pay the full back tax and interest plus another 10%.

In our case becuse it was all put on SA forms it is not tax evasion but so called "tax avoidance" and thus no penalty is being applied.

I understood that point. The issue I have is that the only difference between someone who deliberately didn't declare the income in order to evade tax and us who have declared all of our income since day 1 is a somewhat derisory 10%. We are being told to pay all the back tax and interest on it just like the evaders, they just have to pay an extra 10% to put their situation straight.

They broke the law, we didn't. If ever you wanted evidence that we are being treated like criminals then this is it. You cannot persuade me that a 10% differential is a fair result for us when we have been nothing but transparent and compliant whilst the evaders have deliberately hidden their income and assets.

The point I made was for that tiny difference we might just as well go and hide everything we have. It sends the wrong message.