BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[DonkeyRhubarb]

In the circumstances, I wonder if you and the committee would be content that, rather than providing the memorandum you have requested, HMRC undertakes to keep you informed about the progress of the case.

It's almost like he's saying here "this has nothing to do with us, it's HMRC you should be talking to". HMRC may have come up with the idea but it is the Government which is responsible for legislation.

I don't think the JCHR are going to let you off the hook that easily matey!

EDIT
I suspect Timms is probably pissed off at having to pick up this mess left by Jane Kennedy. I'm sure he'd rather be concentrating on his knew job as "Mr Digital Britain".

[smalldog]

i just love timms response!....such a second hand car saleman..." dont worry mate, only a bit of rust, bodge some filler in it all good, nobody will notice if you spray it a similar colour, dont have to be a perfik match does it bruv, that allwight with u son innit!"....what a clown...."I Wonder..." what a C**T!!!!

[Squicker]

HMRC Bullying

Hi

Even though Montpelier have appealed my CNs, HMRC are still sending me bills for interest on some amounts, as well as surcharges. Montpelier have already written to them once stating the clock should be stopped due to the appeals, but they are persisting in sending this stuff out.

I know they're quite thick down at HMRC, but surely they wouldn't keep repeating the same mistake? Doesn't constitute harrassment? Anyone else had this problem and know how to get them off one's back?

Thanks

[orientalist]

i just love timms response!....such a second hand car saleman..." dont worry mate, only a bit of rust, bodge some filler in it all good, nobody will notice if you spray it a similar colour, dont have to be a perfik match does it bruv, that allwight with u son innit!"....what a clown...."I Wonder..." what a C**T!!!!

He knows the games up, actually may not be bad for us, if they fob the JCHR off with this approach and stick in a couple of delays to the JR so that it comes up after they've been kicked out of office then HMRC can blame it on Ministers that are out of office.

Been hearing rumours of an early election being called (possibly october) to get the inevitable loss over with quickly, allow the tories the grief of dealing with the economy for the next 5 years and let nu lab concentrate on the one after that.... HMRC officials could be under scrutiny quicker than they think

[orientalist]

Hi

Even though Montpelier have appealed my CNs, HMRC are still sending me bills for interest on some amounts, as well as surcharges. Montpelier have already written to them once stating the clock should be stopped due to the appeals, but they are persisting in sending this stuff out.

I know they're quite thick down at HMRC, but surely they wouldn't keep repeating the same mistake? Doesn't constitute harrassment? Anyone else had this problem and know how to get them off one's back?

Thanks

Had similar problems, Mont P appealed the SA years but not the payment on accounts, Mont P said this was obviously implied, Civil Servants followed the letter and we got into a bit of pointless finger pointing, I know its frustrating but hang in and it does all get sorted eventually

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Hi

Even though Montpelier have appealed my CNs, HMRC are still sending me bills for interest on some amounts, as well as surcharges. Montpelier have already written to them once stating the clock should be stopped due to the appeals, but they are persisting in sending this stuff out.

I know they're quite thick down at HMRC, but surely they wouldn't keep repeating the same mistake? Doesn't constitute harrassment? Anyone else had this problem and know how to get them off one's back?

Thanks

I spoke to Montp about this. They said the interest and surcharges are automatically generated and usually printed many weeks before they are sent out so anything that's amended in the meantime is ignored. This has happened to a lot of people. All they can do is keep writing to HMRC until they sort it out.

Just send Montp copies of everything you've received and they will contact HMRC.

[PlaneSailing]

(All credit to Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing who obtained a copy of the letter from the JCHR and forwarded it on to me.)

Pathetic or what!!!

...

In the circumstances, I wonder if you and the committee would be content that, rather than providing the memorandum you have requested, HMRC undertakes to keep you informed about the progress of the case.

...

Can we speak to the JCHR about this? I know I 'm not content with his
nonsense. Do some work for a change and do the assessment.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Why HMRC?

I know others have thought this but just wanted to re-state it. The JR is to challenge primary legislation introduced by HMT and passed via the Government. Yet, HMRC are the Respondents in the pending JR. If HMRC did not introduce the legislation, why are they the Respondents? Surely, it is HMT who are in the hot seat for this and therefore they should be the Respondents. Critically, the letter from Timms states that HMRC are preparing their formal defence. Surely HMT should be defending their legislation and hence be at the JR.

I think I may drop Mr Timms a letter asking this...

[smalldog]

I hope to god the JCHR dont just let him off the hook, he's obviously wriggling...

[Emigre]

I know others have thought this but just wanted to re-state it. The JR is to challenge primary legislation introduced by HMT and passed via the Government. Yet, HMRC are the Respondents in the pending JR. If HMRC did not introduce the legislation, why are they the Respondents? Surely, it is HMT who are in the hot seat for this and therefore they should be the Respondents. Critically, the letter from Timms states that HMRC are preparing their formal defence. Surely HMT should be defending their legislation and hence be at the JR.

I think I may drop Mr Timms a letter asking this...

As taxpayers our relationship is with HMRC and not the Treasury directly. It is HMRC that are breaching our human rights by seeking to enforce the retrospective element of section 58. I suspect that this is the reason. Also, when you look at the listings in the Administrative Court there are none against HMT and many against HMRC.