BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[poppy01]

The answer was staring us in the face all the time.

He's looking for a way out of this:

http://www.judgments.im/content/J984.htm

Overall conclusion

84. Montpelier has satisfied me that Mr Jones and Mr Morris are liable to it for wrongful use of confidential information.

In all dealings with him one must always ask, in the words of Cicero 'Cui Bono'

[ir35amnesia]

Amnesia v Amnesty

BTW, what's the difference between amnesia and amnesty? I can't remember, but I've been pardoned for not knowing.

Amnesty means that going forward you can sleep at night.

Amnesia is a retrospective amnesty decided by the roll of the BN66 roulette wheel. .

[poppy01]

That is - according to my reliable source - correct. PLUS if the trust was set up offshore (although not all were) then you had to report the trust to the HMRC within 3 months of its set-up whichgave the HMRC a ready made list . Particularly when some silly scheme providers used the same address for all trusts/trustees and it became obvious to HMRC in a short period of time that a large scheme was taking shape.

Given I don't know who I'm talking to here, I really could libel you to hell and back couldn't I, except that I really don't think much that we are saying here is libelous at all, just the truth. In a previous post you seemed to distance yourself from the recently defunct IR35amnesty website (whoever you are). Who <removed> are you (whoever you are) trying to kid?. I am only interested in your presence here in the event you wish to help in some way. Do you wish to help? If not then foxtrot romeo oscar.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Fortunately the JR isn't all about you. Its about Human Rights, retrospective legislation and legitimate expectation.

I doubt whether any testimony from you would be admissable anyway, considering your past history.

I think his testimony would be admissible but HMRC would probably try and discredit him, since much of it may come down to his word against theirs. Conversely, if he testified for HMRC then our side would also have plenty to discredit him with.

The other thing is if, as I expect, he wants something in return for his testimony then you would be getting into the realms of bribery.

In any case, as you say, the JR hinges on fundamental principles.

Having said all that, it would give certain senior officers in HMRC something to worry about if he was likely to give evidence. I bet he could cause them a lot of embarrassment.

[Richard Splash]

I know I may not be as learned as some on this thread but I have to say the psychology of it all makes for some excellent reading. We have individuals here who think that talking in riddles is somewhat clever and others that rise to the bait. I can only concur with Poppy.... If your purpose on this thread is to help then help away and stop being coy about it. Cut to the chase... This is not a courtship ritual or a seduction of minds but you are masturbating the minds of good honest people here and that just aint cricket.... If you are here to play games with people you feel may be intellecually inferior to your supreme mind then perhaps you should go elsewhere to spray your literary poison....

End of rant... now lets get on with the show... 19 Jan 2010

[Toocan]

Two steps forward, one step back.

That is - according to my reliable source - correct. PLUS if the trust was set up offshore (although not all were) then you had to report the trust to the HMRC within 3 months of its set-up whichgave the HMRC a ready made list . Particularly when some silly scheme providers used the same address for all trusts/trustees and it became obvious to HMRC in a short period of time that a large scheme was taking shape.

Whether you, or someone you may be, gave HMRC a list of people; or whether the clever potato's in HMRC (hi! btw) figured out who was in the scheme from trust opening notifications or from SA returns makes little difference. The scheme discussed on this thread was EASILY recognised at an EARLY stage. Your experience ensured that HMRC were FULLY AWARE of how the scheme operated. All of this is EASILY PROVABLE from the documents and people already assembled.

In fact, if and when we win the JR, it will be partially down to you (or the person you may be). I can happily say THANK YOU for making sure that HMRC have NO EXCUSES.

This scheme “fails” the first indicator of a “tax avoidance scheme” (according to Dave Hartnett – head of HMRC and all round crowd pleaser) – it is FULLY DISCLOSED. It is not secret or hidden. We better call it “tax planning” to fit in with Dave’s nomenclature.

What I can’t figure out is: Why are you here?

You exited this scheme (as far as we know) so many years ago.

Why is it of interest to you?

Do you want to avenge the IoM Court matter mentioned earlier? I’ve skim read the documents that I can find and you clearly have had some problems. Life’s short and hard and I wouldn’t wish that on anyone. However, how can you avenge without hurting the 2,500 – 3,000 individuals who you have no complaint with and they in turn have no complaint with you?

Or are you just enjoying the show?

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Merry Christmas

All, (those who are posting on the forum with genuine intent, those who may want their sliced bread and eat it and possibly those in HMRC who are observers here).

It's Christmas. So I think it appropriate to say to all of you, that I hope you have a very happy Christmas and New Year. I hope that kindness and compassion comes to your home and you give it back in the same free way. I hope you all can put down your axes on this matter for one day and remember life is about your family. So, and I hope nobody takes this to heart I have written a new version to "While Shepherds watch...".

I had do do this, since lately my 2 year old daughter has said Hector more than Daddy whilst slicing my own home made bread over dinner. So enough is enough for now. And for those in HMRC who are the same nice people that my daughter will one day expect to be fair and proportionate, I especially hope you don't think ill of us for wanting to protect our family and lives. After all, I doubt any of us have 14 kids and live of state benefits.

So for all of you...

While bankers watch their stocks by night
All seated at the Boardroom table
Some jealous folks at the Revenue
Came after them as best they were able.

Avoid, evade or plan your tax
We really do not care
We want your cash in any case
As the tax cupboard is bare.

And now we find a bunch of folks
Who used this avoidance scheme
We know we did nowt for 7 long years
But we'll do what we now deem.

Padmore should have taught
That we must now do better
But for 20 years we failed in that
So send you a demanding letter.

The JCHR are rather miffed
That you abused our rights
And now this forum is in full swing
Forget those Silent Nights.

We all request that you stop this now
And take down all the shutters
Or we'll send the folks at ECHR round
With rusty foreskin cutters!


Merry Christmas everyone.

[SantaClaus]

Absolute quality poem Tax_Shouldnt_Be_Taxing.

When I watch Scrooge over Christmas, I'll be thinking of HMRC...

"you gotta pick a pocket or two-oo, you gotta pick a pocket or two".

[poppy01]

I think his testimony would be admissible but HMRC would probably try and discredit him, since much of it may come down to his word against theirs. Conversely, if he testified for HMRC then our side would also have plenty to discredit him with.

The other thing is if, as I expect, he wants something in return for his testimony then you would be getting into the realms of bribery.

In any case, as you say, the JR hinges on fundamental principles.

Having said all that, it would give certain senior officers in HMRC something to worry about if he was likely to give evidence. I bet he could cause them a lot of embarrassment.

Much as I hate him for the storm thats been raging over me since the day I met him, I would do a deal with the devil if it helped my family. My tuppence worth. No doubt there would have to be something in it for him though. There surely isn't anyone who knows more about the Suo Motu settlement..

[SantaClaus]

... After all, I doubt any of us have 14 kids and live of state benefits.

You must be referring to this article:

Millionaires' Row 2009: How hundreds of families get luxury homes on benefits far beyond the means of most working people

Maybe I need to try for at least 8 children, then I could move up the property ladder to Notting Hill.

No wonder HMRC are so desperate for tax revenue. They're flushing it down the toilet!