BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[DonkeyRhubarb]

So, given that the Judicial Review cannot actually reverse the retrospecive changes; what is it that we hope to achieve from the JR?

If HMRC have ignored the JCHR, what is to stop them ignoring the judge's recommendations at the JR?

The JCHR are essentially a toothless committee. They can't order Government or HMRC to do anything. We always knew this, and the best that could be achieved would be a report criticising the legislation, which would (a) vindicate us and (b) carry some sway in the legal proceedings.

The Judicial Review is a completely different kettle of fish. If this goes against HMRC then they cannot ignore it. They can appeal against the decision but they can't ignore a High Court ruling.

Ask yourself this.

If HMRC were able ignore the Judicial Review don't you think they would have taken the appeals to the commissioners by now so they could collect the money?

And by the way, don't believe a word of what Brannigan said in his newsletter last year because, in the words of Peter Mandelson, the guy is a lying chump.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

A bit of perspective

Some people have contacted me worried that the JCHR decision not to follow up the letter from Timms is a major setback.

Yes it's disappointing that they've apparently let the bugger off the hook, but let's be clear they don't agree with what he said. Not at all in fact. They feel that the JR should have been no excuse for the Treasury not to provide the memo they asked for. It's just that they are pragmatic and realise that the Treasury will never accede to their request, no matter how many times they ask.

They will still go ahead and report their findings but just on the basis of what they already know. They gave Timms & Co an opportunity to put the Treasury and HMRC's counter-arguments but they chose to say nothing. Therefore, the JCHR can only report it the way they find it. End of story.

By the way, I can't speak for anyone else but personally I am more confident than ever that we will win the JR.

And incidentally, Brillo didn't mention that the following quote came from someone else altogether...

"The response from Timms is typical of the evasive attitude of HMRC to this whole issue. All that HMRC are doing is running/hiding away.

However they cant run or hide in court....."

[SantaClaus]

My letter:

Dear Sirs

I am very disappointed to hear that the JCHR are not going to press Stephen Timms for an answer and justification of Section 58, 2008 Finance Act.

I have a family (wife and 9 month old baby) who will be made homeless by this retrospective legislation and I will be made bankrupt and therefore unable to gain future work in the City.

I was amazed to read that MPs feel they shouldn't have to pay back their expenses retrospectively, but were quite happy to vote through the section 58 legislation. Considering that MPs will suffer mildly in comparison to myself and thousands of other contractors, I feel very sad for democracy in this country.

I do hope that the JCHR will do the right thing, show they are an organisation that has some influence and take Stephen Timms and this government to task, if only for the sake of democracy and Human Rights.

Yours sincerely

Santa

[Retro]

My Two P's Worth

Dear Sirs

Re: Section 58 FA 2008

I have just read Mr Timms’ response to your questions, and for clarity, and because I can hardly believe it, I repeat his response here.

“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 is clear that Mr Timms has been unable to appreciate the scale of the anxiety and uncertainty that has been caused by this retrospective legislation.

HMRC has been aware since 2001 of the schemes in question and has failed to act, so his comment about “HMRC undertaking to keep you informed of progress” would be laughable if the situation were not so serious and potentially devastating to many.

I would urge you to try again to elicit an answer from Mr Timms that would show at least a small appreciation of the unacceptable position in which many people find themselves. It would be to Mr Timms’ advantage to be less callous and dismissive when you have asked for detailed information.

Kind Regards

[BrilloPad]

oh yes - 5 years with MTM. closure notices for them all.

Have you got a CTD? Can you afford to pay?

[BrilloPad]

And incidentally, Brillo didn't mention that the following quote came from someone else altogether...

"The response from Timms is typical of the evasive attitude of HMRC to this whole issue. All that HMRC are doing is running/hiding away.

However they cant run or hide in court....."

Apologies for that : I have now edited.

[TheBarCapBoyz]

This guy on shout99 has contacted Peter Oborne (Daily Mail) about the retrospective aspects of IR35 (were there any?).

Oborne is writing an article on MPs' double standards and retrospection.

Maybe we should point them in our direction...

http://www.shout99.com/contractors/s...le.pl?id=65209

Interesting that Oborne is asking for anyone directly affected by retrospection.

[DaveB]

This guy on shout99 has contacted Peter Oborne (Daily Mail) about the retrospective aspects of IR35 (were there any?).

Oborne is writing an article on MPs' double standards and retrospection.

Maybe we should point them in our direction...

http://www.shout99.com/contractors/s...le.pl?id=65209

Interesting that Oborne is asking for anyone directly affected by retrospection.

Sadly he seems to have got it completely wrong. IR35, Dragonfly and Arctic have nothing to do with BN66 and the retrospective tax legislation. Can't remember my shout99 login details so could check the replies to see if anyone had corrected him. He is in danger of sending Mr Osboune off on a wild goose chase and achieving nothing but wasting his time.

[TheBarCapBoyz]

That's what I was thinking. I checked the replies and no-one has mentioned BN66.

As I recall, IR35 was an entirely prospective measure, and Arctic was s660 not IR35, which was retrospective. HMRC lost that one in the Lords of course when they tried to argue that they were "clarifying" the old settlements legislation.

That latter piece of legislation is more relevant than IR35, I would think.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Email to Peter Oborne (Daily Mail)

I can't say I'm a big fan of the Daily Mail but what the hell...

Subject: Retrospective double standards

Dear Mr Oborne,

I have been following your reports on the retrospective expenses saga, and I thought you might find the following of interest.

It is a letter from the Joint Committee on Human Rights to Treasury Minister Stephen Timms severely criticising retrospective tax legislation introduced in last year's budget.

http://www.publications.parliament.u...3/13308.htm#a6

This legislation was approved by Parliament ie. the very MPs who are now moaning about retrospective rules on expenses.

I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions.

Yours sincerely