BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[DonkeyRhubarb]

JCHR update

This is not their final report but it includes a recent exchange of letters.

Specifically:

1) The reply from Timms back in July
2) The JCHR's followup to Timms in October
3) Timms reply to this

See pages 15 & 16.

http://www.publications.parliament.u...ghts/21/21.pdf

[DonkeyRhubarb]

The storm is coming

The ramifications of this case could be far reaching.

When the Finance Bill was introduced, it was prefaced by the following statement by the Chancellor:

http://www.publications.parliament.u...08089.i-v.html

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer has made the following statement under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998:

In my view the provisions of the Finance Bill are compatible with the Convention rights.

(Lord Davies of Oldham made a similar statement when the Bill was introduced to the House of Lords.)

If Section 58 is ruled incompatible, the Chancellor will have to make a statement to Parliament explaining how this breach of human rights happened. As far as I'm aware, this would be unprecedented.

HMRC's conduct will come under intense scrutiny.

No doubt the Government will try and spin their way out of it but it was they who chose not to listen to their own Human Rights committee, and they were quite happy to leave it to the courts to decide. They can't really complain if the courts then rule against them.

Many MPs may also leap on the judgement to draw parallels with the retrospective clawback of expenses.

I suspect there is going to be quite a lot of fallout from this.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Postcript to my previous post

Thanks to LisaContractorUmbrella for passing this on. (Read both pages.)

http://www.wirralnews.co.uk/wirral-n...2534-25419584/

"That point on retrospective action will be key to a tsunami of legal challenges in coming months."

[smalldog]

The ramifications of this case could be far reaching.

When the Finance Bill was introduced, it was prefaced by the following statement by the Chancellor:

http://www.publications.parliament.u...08089.i-v.html



(Lord Davies of Oldham made a similar statement when the Bill was introduced to the House of Lords.)

If Section 58 is ruled incompatible, the Chancellor will have to make a statement to Parliament explaining how this breach of human rights happened. As far as I'm aware, this would be unprecedented.

HMRC's conduct will come under intense scrutiny.

No doubt the Government will try and spin their way out of it but it was they who chose not to listen to their own Human Rights committee, and they were quite happy to leave it to the courts to decide. They can't really complain if the courts then rule against them.

Many MPs may also leap on the judgement to draw parallels with the retrospective clawback of expenses.

I suspect there is going to be quite a lot of fallout from this.

thats legend!!!! The JCHR didnt know anything about it and hadnt been approached so how on earth could the chancellor give such an assurance!? Arrogance, he knew better than his own department, or Ignorance as he had been fed the wrong info....its gets more and more smelly!!! This is actually turning into a farce, Tom Sharpe would have a field day....I actually think this could seriously damage some top brass in government office and HMRC....

[SantaClaus]

....I actually think this could seriously damage some top brass in government office and HMRC....

Good!

[futurecat]

Thankyou Donkey and Co.

Just a quick note to say thankyou to everyone who has contributed to this site. Has given me a lot of (much needed) reassurance over the last few months / years (cant believe I am saying years!). When you first get those nasty brown envelopes through your door it is a real shock. Indeed as we all know this is exactly what they are trying to do, shock and scare.

Thankyou to Donkey Rhubarb, Brillo and everyone else

Would prefer it if we could avoid the less PC remarks about certain individuals / organisations. I am no fan,.. but would like to keep things civil.

God willing, things will go our way in the new year. Come mid January, I am hoping that we will be able to put all this behind us. Happy Holidays everyone.

[DownButNotOut]

here here

well said futurecat, thank you DR and friends. Merry xmas and roll on Jan 2010.....

[ContractIn]

Please note that there are posters/"imposters" out there [maybe within the normal BN66 crowd] who are trying to incite other forum users against me.

I have been reading threads on this website since 2000.

My take/opinion on BN66 is very simple

(A) Retrospective tax legislation is wrong.

(B) The scheme that was closed did not work and HMRC could have successfully challenged it (In fact i have it in "black and white" that if HMRC lose the JR they will challenge the scheme through the "proper route")

(C) Suo Motu settlement was done in best interests of clients based on the facts available at the time. To answer cynics who say clients "were sold down the river". It would have been the easiest "sell" to carry on and continue to take fees from them (just as other scheme promoters did).

(C) Anyone who joined the scheme post 2003 should have been made aware that there were opinions from Tax Counsel that said the scheme did not work in the same way that there were opinions that said it did.

(D) I am one of the few people who can genuinely feel what you guys are going through. I suffer from Bi-polar disorder and will have to take medication for the rest of my life. However I am not mental/insane. I have suffered divorce. I have a mentally handicapped daughter. I have lived with prospect of bankruptcy for over 8 years

(e) If you lose JR there still is a way to get round the retrospective element. See bn66.co.uk (this site has nothing to do with me).

Wishing you all a Merry Xmas and a prosperous and peaceful new year.

Regards

I certainly wasn't.

[Cosmo]

I certainly wasn't.

It's an "opinion" - thre must be an opinion that says it also does work.

If I look hard enough, I'm sure I can find you an opinion that says the Earth is flat but we know that aint true.

[OnYourBikeGB]

This is not their final report but it includes a recent exchange of letters.

Specifically:

1) The reply from Timms back in July
2) The JCHR's followup to Timms in October
3) Timms reply to this

See pages 15 & 16.

http://www.publications.parliament.u...ghts/21/21.pdf

Hmm interesting one. See page 16. Is Hector's guy this bloke? :
http://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/WhoWeAre_...erSinghQC.aspx

It's a little surprising, as he seems to have a record of doing the Government over and holding them to account.