BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[PlaneSailing]

Jane Kennedy: I hope I get this right. It is because HMRC has not consistently made the case throughout the time period that the scheme does not work, that it is a deliberate and wilful avoidance scheme that flouts the 1987 legislation, and that it would be challenged.


They aren't even consistent about being consistent.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

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.

It was the same with IR35. HMT enacted the legislation; HMRC defended the judicial review.

However, Timms is sadly mistaken if he thinks he can pass the buck to HMRC when it comes to answering to the Human Rights committee.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

News Flash

The JCHR will debate Timms' response on Tuesday 13th October.

It is a pity that there is such a long delay but unfortunately this was inevitable with the parliamentary recess.

I am sure The Treasury were banking on this to stall for time.

[DaveB]

The JCHR will debate Timms' response on Tuesday 13th October.

It is a pity that there is such a long delay but unfortunately this was inevitable with the parliamentary recess.

I am sure The Treasury were banking on this to stall for time.

Is there a way to get involved in this? Do they ask for input from individuals affected by the subject under debate?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Is there a way to get involved in this? Do they ask for input from individuals affected by the subject under debate?

They've got our "input" in the form of the survey with the witness testimonies.
http://www.publications.parliament.u...3/13308.htm#a7

In theory, there is nothing to stop anyone who feels strongly about this contacting them, but it is unlikely to influence the proceedings unless new evidence is introduced.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

News Flash

I have just heard from our legal team that there is an outside chance of the JR happening before Xmas. We should know more in a couple of weeks time when the court lists cases for the autumn term.

The JR is now on the warned list (CO/10012/2008 - Huitson v HM Revenue & Customs), although I'm not 100% clear what this means.

See spreadsheet at bottom of page:
http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/2294.htm

[BrilloPad]

The JCHR will debate Timms' response on Tuesday 13th October.

It is a pity that there is such a long delay but unfortunately this was inevitable with the parliamentary recess.

I am sure The Treasury were banking on this to stall for time.

I have just heard from our legal team that there is an outside chance of the JR happening before Xmas. We should know more in a couple of weeks time when the court lists cases for the autumn term.

The JR is now on the warned list (CO/10012/2008 - Huitson v HM Revenue & Customs), although I'm not 100% clear what this means.

See spreadsheet at bottom of page:
http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/2294.htm

Many thanks for the updates.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Enough is enough

Folks,

The reply from Mr Timms blanks serious questions raised by the JCHR. Numerous FOI requests have been met with the same apathy. There is a Human Rights issue at the heart of the JR and no matter how questions are posed, HMT seem to think it appropriate to blank the need to qualify their position qoting rather dubious reasons such as "not in the public interest". Well, I am part of the public and I want to know how HMRC came to the decision that BN66 was lawful given the concerns of JCHR, CIOT, members of Parliament and others.

I intend on exploring channels to have HMRC explain themselves not least due to the fact that delayed and ongoing concerns about "peaceful enjoyment" remain unanswered despite numerous and fair requests being made on the part of the many. As FDR quoted, speak softly and carry a big stick. Well, I hope that the JCHR are "the big stick" and I will speak softly.

There is much afoot to get answers to fair public questions. This is not the time to rest or retreat, but rather to steel ourselves to ask questions that a democracy is engineered to answer.Nobody is above the law not even government. Explain your case, share it with the public and answer to those who challenge the virtues of your acts. This is the way of Human Rights. Hiding behind legislation, exemption and the case of future events is a matter of autocracy and not of a government who claims to "listen and learn". Let us make this quote so.

Respect the law but never fail to use the instruments provided by the law to ask the clear and fair democratic question of "why?". Hence why the response to the JCHR and the numerous FOI requests need to be improved, as my school report once said "could do better"...

[DonkeyRhubarb]

FOI Requests

Thanks to everyone who has submitted them so far. They are piling up nicely.
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/hm_treasury

Even if they still refuse to comply, we are at least making this a lot more visible and harder for them to ignore.

I will keep updating the wording every day or so:
http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...i-request.html

Still no response on the following, so it looks like this is destined for the Information Commissioner.
http://forums.contractoruk.com/924351-post494.html

[smalldog]

This entire affair has made me even more determined to remain a contractor and to arrange my affairs in a way that minimises my tax.

No way Im going to go PAYE and handover all that cash if these are the sort of people collecting it!!!! Bunch of shisters...