BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[Emigre]

Section 9A TMA 1970 Enquiries

Last week I received one of these delightful letters advising me that they are going to roll my 2007/08 use of the scheme into their ongoing enquiries.

Yesterday, I received a second letter doing exactly the same thing but issued by a different office.

So, my SAR for 2007/08 is now being investigated twice by separate offices, focusing not surprisingly on the same element on the return. I've now received letters from 7 different offices since their enquiries started.

This is probably why they invoke the cost clause re FOIs - they haven't got a clue who did what where.

[BrilloPad]

Hello to all immates
After 2.5 years I have received the the first correspondence from the SCO in the form of a CN.
Please can someone give me an email address to send the info to at Montpelier.

welcome to the bn66 thread.

Who do you usually deal with at montp? TQ or NW? Were I to get a CN I would scan it in and email to one of them.

BP

[SantaClaus]

I'd just like to say a big "Hi" to all our regular HMRC readers

Now get back to work!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

We've got a growing audience

Today I discovered that, in addition to our friends up North, another branch of HMRC is reading the forum.

I wonder how many other followers we've got out there?

Incidentally, they know who I am, so now might be a good time to dissassociate yourself from the nutter with the Donkey.

I'd love to know what they make of his purple coat, although I imagine one or two people working there might agree. Perhaps I should get some T-shirts made up.

Oh and by the way his name is Dilbert, which I feel is rather appropriate in the circumstances.

[Toocan]

Doing the right thing

All, and HMRC in particular,

Without the retrospective part of section 58, Finance Act 2008 HMRC have no ability to collect additional tax from anyone who has legitimately used the tax planning scheme which this section closed down. Although HMRC initially claimed that it was a ‘clarification’ of the law even they now accept that it is a new law. HMRC’s action demonstrate this fact better than anything I could write – they did not even try to collect the extra tax prior to the enactment.

So what makes HMRC think that it is right or proper that they should have this law? Is it the moral case? Let’s be clear, tax is not levied based on moral thoughts or indeed voluntary actions – it is levied by statue: a list of rules that are known before the fact, not after the fact. This is a basic tenet of our system of law.

If HMRC do feel they have some ‘moral compass’ to request and keep section 58 then what does that moral compass tell them about charging interest on an amount that was not due? It is not a consequence of the laws because those same laws did not exist at the time the tax was notionally due. It then becomes interest on nothing. It is not interest, but a penalty. What of the moral compass now?

What could we compare this behaviour to? Many of us have had threatening letters from HMRC’s debt collection department – the amusingly titled Debt Management Office. Given the state of the governments finances one has to ask what they have been doing?

A threat to take whatever I have unless I pay up.
To pay up for something that never was at the time in question.
To then pay interest on that nothingness at a rate I could not get from any bank or building society in the country. At an excessive interest rate.

If a weighty man in a dark coat turned up at my door and demanded money – for nothing - otherwise he’d ruin my life, I would call that wrong. This is not a tax, this is not interest, they were not known about in advance. It is morally wrong. It is ethically wrong. I believe it is only a matter of time until the judiciary declare it legally wrong.

Around 3,000 people are being affected by this wrong. A large number of those people are working to have this law revoked. Some are gathering information, some are lobbying influential people, some are building a legal case. We’re not going to give up. We’ve been wronged. We’re British. We don’t tolerate being wronged. We didn’t elect our leaders to wrong us. We don’t give up. It’s not part of our make up.

Understand who we are. We create things. We build things. We’ve paid a fortune into the state over the years. Most of us got involved with this because the uncertainty of IR35 was too much. HMRC caused this. Most of us do not know what the inside of a benefit office looks like because we’ve never been there. We don’t give up. We carry on. Join us. Stand with us in your own way.

The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 gives protection to anyone who provides information or concerns about crime, civil offences (including negligence, breach of contract, breach of administrative law), miscarriage of justice, danger to health and safety or the environment and the cover up of any of these amongst other things.

You have the right to do what’s right. If this message strikes a cord, you know what to do.

[SantaClaus]

I would like to add that in the unlikely event that we lose the JR, all 3000 of us should band together and demand individual hearings in court.

That should keep HMRC busy for many years.
Maybe by the 100th case, the judge may release how wrong this all is.

[Slobbo]

If the revenue win then I am sure a good number of us will be in those benefit offices every fortnight whilst waiting to be housed in social housing. I wonder how much that will cost the very same government that is trying to shaft us. Not only that but I wonder how much they will lose because we won't be putting anything back in the economy.

Maybe we should all team together and form a bank. That way we can create a few bad debts and then ask the government to bail us out.

or

We can band together and form a new country then we could apply for some of those development grants that the government hands out to other developing countries.

Either option will give us the cash to pay back what they believe we owe.

[smalldog]

and they would only recover a fraction of the quoted £200m and at what human cost?

Bankruptcy, personal grief and stress plus the cost to the family, not to mention the inability for you to be a director of a business again for a number of years. So you're career is in tatters, you cant get a mortgage or credit again for at least 5 years, you are forced out of being in business on your own account and into a lower paid permie job.

Is that just punishment for using a legitimate tax planning scheme, I certainly dont think so..

Timms et al, I really dont know how you can sleep at night, if you were to win the JR do you know the devastation you would be causing to normal families? People who (misguidedly) probably voted for your government, people who are the general public but who you decide to deny information as its not in the public interest? The same general public that you site as justification to impose retrospectivity.

This isnt legislation in the interests of protecting the public purse, this is personal.

[ContractIn]

Last week I received one of these delightful letters advising me that they are going to roll my 2007/08 use of the scheme into their ongoing enquiries.

Yesterday, I received a second letter doing exactly the same thing but issued by a different office.

So, my SAR for 2007/08 is now being investigated twice by separate offices, focusing not surprisingly on the same element on the return. I've now received letters from 7 different offices since their enquiries started.

This is probably why they invoke the cost clause re FOIs - they haven't got a clue who did what where.

I got the same delightful letter yesterday 'Section 9A TMA 1970'. How different is this tact to issuing CN's, which is what I received for 06/07?

I notice there was no timeframe for senidng the info in. Anyway, will notify MTM who will respond on my behalf.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 gives protection to anyone who provides information or concerns about crime, civil offences (including negligence, breach of contract, breach of administrative law), miscarriage of justice, danger to health and safety or the environment and the cover up of any of these amongst other things.

You have the right to do what’s right. If this message strikes a cord, you know what to do.

Unfortunately, and largely down to me, this is likely to fall on deaf ears. I don't think there are many officials involved in this, at HMRC or HM Treasury, that I haven't annoyed over the past 6 months.

Sadly, I also suspect that many of them who read my JCHR survey below will be thinking "serves 'em right!".

http://www.publications.parliament.u...3/13308.htm#a7