BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[PlaneSailing]

Funny you should mention that.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques..._in_bn66_key_d

I can't think of any reason as to why they can't answer point 1,
which is the key one.

The rest may get the usual 'public interest' nonsense.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I can't think of any reason as to why they can't answer point 1,
which is the key one.

The rest may get the usual 'public interest' nonsense.

I think it will be extremely hard for them to argue that supplying dates is not in the public interest. However, I expect them to try and dodge or fudge it in some other way.

It's funny how the Labour Party says it's proud of introducing FOI when the whole thing is just a sham and a big con, ironically a bit like New Labour itself, all smoke and mirrors.

[PlaneSailing]

I think it will be extremely hard for them to argue that supplying dates is not in the public interest. However, I expect them to try and dodge or fudge it in some other way.

It's funny how the Labour Party says it's proud of introducing FOI when the whole thing is just a sham and a big con, ironically a bit like New Labour itself, all smoke and mirrors.

In my reply from the FOI people they claimed that they wouldn't
release the documents as they would come out in the JR anyway.

So, in order to get information out of them, I have to mount a Judicial
Review?????!!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

In my reply from the FOI people they claimed that they wouldn't
release the documents as they would come out in the JR anyway.

Interesting, they didn't mention that in any of my responses. They may well release some of the HMRC material but I can't see them ever releasing the ministerial briefing papers.

Given that FOI is a total farce, my strategy is just to keep chipping away at them.

Like a blind man with a machine gun, if I keep spraying enough bullets one or two of them may eventually hit the target (hopefully right in the nuts).

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

I can't think of any reason as to why they can't answer point 1,
which is the key one.

The rest may get the usual 'public interest' nonsense.

DR, as point 1 is already in the public domain and is not directly linked to the JR as it concerns an SC issue, then I cannot see any grounds to refuse to respond with the information. If they do, where does that leave HMRC Guidelines which state they are obliged to keep you informed of progress, timelines and process in a reasonable time? The JR is not about poor practice with the SC process. The 4 cases in question do not appear to have been dealt with using the then in place HMRC processes for SC review. That is the crux of point 1 so has no ground to be refused as it is VERY MUCH in the public interest to know if there are failings by HMRC wrt SC guidelines and process.

I cannot imaging how the FOI gets blanked on point 1 unless they are saying "we will not tell you why the SC process failed to be followed in these cases, nor will we tell you why it failed even though HMRC guidelines tell you that we will keep you informed".

[orientalist]

I cannot imaging how the FOI gets blanked on point 1 unless they are saying "we will not tell you why the SC process failed to be followed in these cases, nor will we tell you why it failed even though HMRC guidelines tell you that we will keep you informed".

FOI is a farce, and relatively easy to dodge, the good news is that when a JR is launched they have a "duty of candour", which means they have to supply everything, any document or email containing BN66 or key other words needs to be handed across for examination, it rightly causes the civil servants a world of pain and is meant to keep government in check, lets hope they've followed some good house keeping and no embarrassing emails come to light.....

[smalldog]

MP Expenses

interesting this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8301884.stm

The MP's will have retrospective limits set on paying back expenses, I assume in the interest of being fair....So Basically they will only have to payback expenses to a point in time deemed to be fair on the basis on operating within something that was legal at the time but giving concession to the fact it was viewed a slightly unspirited...sound familiar anyone?! This could be a nice little bit of case law for us, even tho not a law as such..

They are apparently furious about having to pay any money back at all, we are talking about small change here, £100 here £1000 there...So how do they think they might feel if they were in our predicament?!!! Think we should write to every MP affected and explain the parallel..

So why the F**K are we not being given the same courtesy!!!!!!

One rule for them etc...

[Thenobbler]

Letter to the Torygraph

Sent to the Telegraph this morning after a gentle read over breakfast almost had me spitting my coffee out with hysterical laughter:

Sir,

I am one of a group of about 2,000 independent IT contractors currently under threat of a massive tax demand (for around £100,000 in my case) as a result of retrospective legislation having been enacted by the current government. This has the effect of rendering previously legal tax planning 'illegal' at the stroke of a pen, and this deeply illiberal legislation will bankrupt and destroy the lives of many of my peers. Indeed it has already started to do so, and whilst I am fortunate in having a second career in writing, through which I may yet manage to pay off this extortion if I am fortunate, others in my peer group have no such fallback.

This morning I read in the Telegraph that 'MPs are reacting in horror...They accuse the former civil servant (Sir Thomas Legg) of seeking to retrospectively change the rules.' I find myself bitterly amused by the phenomenon of the very people who retrospectively legislated my financial disaster having their own illiberality applied to their own personal affairs. Many of them will resign? I look forward to seeing them hounded through the courts and shamed by the popular media. What's sauce for the goose...

Please note that I would prefer to remain anonymous - HMCE has a long and vindictive arm:

[smalldog]

yep thats basically the thrust of the injustice, the rules are just, until they are applied to you...bunch of unbelievable hypocrits..

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

This is classic!

Quoted in the Guardian today about MP's expenses:

Speaking on GMTV, Brown said: "He [Legg] is an auditor, looking at the expenses. I think he has probably created new rules going backwards, in other words retrospectively introduced new rules, so people who were doing everything right may have to pay back even although they have filled in their forms correctly."

You couldn't make this up! Brown wants to push through retrospective tax legislation even though we "filled in our forms correctly" yet he's blindly (scuse the pun) bleating on about retrospection as being unfair. Could someone quote him on this and see (scuse the pun again) what he thinks about that?