BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[bombaycat]

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.

blah blah

(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

Regards

I'm really not trying to get at you or be rude but reading the symptoms of bipolar disorder I do wonder if your medication should be reviewed...not being funny, but your posts do seem to contain evidence of some of the below symptoms. I'd rather you got professional help than wasted time trying to play games with people on this thread.

Signs and symptoms of mania

In the manic phase of bipolar disorder, feelings of heightened energy, creativity, and euphoria are common. People experiencing a manic episode often talk a mile a minute, sleep very little, and are hyperactive. They may also feel like they’re all-powerful, invincible, or destined for greatness.

But while mania feels good at first, it has a tendency to spiral out of control. People often behave recklessly during a manic episode: gambling away savings, engaging in inappropriate sexual activity, or making foolish business investments, for example. They may also become angry, irritable, and aggressive–picking fights, lashing out when others don’t go along with their plans, and blaming anyone who criticizes their behavior. Some people even become delusional or start hearing voices.

Common signs and symptoms of mania include:

* Feeling unusually “high” and optimistic OR extremely irritable
* Unrealistic, grandiose beliefs about one’s abilities or powers
* Sleeping very little, but feeling extremely energetic
* Talking so rapidly that others can’t keep up
* Racing thoughts; jumping quickly from one idea to the next
* Highly distractible, unable to concentrate
* Impaired judgment and impulsiveness
* Acting recklessly without thinking about the consequences
* Delusions and hallucinations (in severe cases)

[RestrospectiveIsWrong]

A question from a long time lurker

Hi all,

First off, thanks to everyone that has spent time on this forum writing constructive posts, putting up useful information and getting involved in the various ongoing judicial processes.

Where I am now: I've received my closure notices and I am in possession of a final amount which comes out at a pretty low six figures. After far too long living off cans of value tuna I'm in a position to pay off what HMRC are claiming that I owe. I already have most of it in a CTD. Since I'm of the opinion that HMRC are in the wrong I'd prefer to leave things that way until the matter is resolved.

I have a question, though. What is the impact of fighting this to the bitter end and then paying up? I've seen murmurings from some folks who believe they would have trouble continuing their employment in the financial industry as a result of HMRC winning?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Hi all,

First off, thanks to everyone that has spent time on this forum writing constructive posts, putting up useful information and getting involved in the various ongoing judicial processes.

Where I am now: I've received my closure notices and I am in possession of a final amount which comes out at a pretty low six figures. After far too long living off cans of value tuna I'm in a position to pay off what HMRC are claiming that I owe. I already have most of it in a CTD. Since I'm of the opinion that HMRC are in the wrong I'd prefer to leave things that way until the matter is resolved.

I have a question, though. What is the impact of fighting this to the bitter end and then paying up? I've seen murmurings from some folks who believe they would have trouble continuing their employment in the financial industry as a result of HMRC winning?

Hi and welcome to the forum.

You are one of the more fortunate ones having the means to pay, and you are right to just sit tight and await the final outcome.

A lot of people are not in your position, and for some bankruptcy may be the only option if we lose, and it is this which could damage their employment prospects.

[orientalist]

Tax Payers Alliance, easy bedfellows?

Found this article today,

http://tpa.typepad.com/research/2008...vasion-vs.html

Is there any mileage getting this influential lobby group onside? avoidance is not an issue for them according to this story and I'm sure they will have loads to say about the retrospective precedent being set for HMRC.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Found this article today,

http://tpa.typepad.com/research/2008...vasion-vs.html

Is there any mileage getting this influential lobby group onside? avoidance is not an issue for them according to this story and I'm sure they will have loads to say about the retrospective precedent being set for HMRC.

I sent them details of the case about a year ago but got no response. With the JR imminent they might be more interested so I'll drop them another line.

[Emigre]

Good morning friends.

The man with the red suit has been and gone for another year, having once again done a sterling job, and we are left to say Happy New Year to all we meet. We are more than used to saying it but never really sure what it means or what it will bring.

2010 is without doubt going to be a seminal year, especially for those on this thread. 2010 is going to be the year when the Courts have to decide whether to encourage transparency by finding in favour of those who have been transparent on their tax returns over the years. For the Courts to find against those who have been transparent, and in favour of those that have abused their position of trust and authority and in the process been deceitful and dishonest, will send a clear message to the broader taxpaying public that "honesty does not pay".

Regardless of Henchman Hartnett's rhetoric, it is a simple step to conclude that there would be a resultant quantum shift away from compliance toward increasing aggressive schemes and probably evasion, through non-disclosure of income.

To have been transparent and declared all of our income for these last 8 years and then to be found to have effectively broken the law haa already and will continue to send an extremely poor message to potential inward investors to the UK. In simple terms both businesses and individuals need certainty in their expectations. Our tax planning was within the law when we did it. S58 retrospectively states that it was not. That is not a clarification, the right place to clarify is in a Court of Law. S58 deprived us of our rights to prove that what we did was within the law. The retrospective application of s58 is nothing other than state theft.

At the JR starting on 19 January 2010 the judiciary have the opportunity to start setting the record straight and to provide proper support for those that open and honest, whilst at the same time castigating those that are less so. A Judge with these principles at his/her heart should have no difficulty finding in favour of those abused whilst at the same time "clarifying" the true extent of the HR abuse by HMRC and HMT by not permitting any appeal, as such an appeal would not be in the public interest.

Happy New Year everyone! Thank you to DR. You're a legend. I look forward to meeting you at the Hearing.

[ROBIN REDBREAST]

...and I'll second that..!

Emigre

I whole heartedly agree with what you say, regardless of the sceptics out there, some recently on this thread, regardless of how agressive may they deem the arrangeing of our tax affairs, we did it by the law at the time and we should not be deprived our human right to live our lives within the law at the time.

If we were to lose this it would be a sham and a disgrace to man kind. The message would be sent out to all tax payers in this land "watch out, PAYE or self employed, business or sole trader, we can stitch you up retrospectviely and ruin your lives at any time, BEWARE"

Although I wont be able to attend the JR on teh 19th, I look forward to the updates on this site and at least some "certainty and clarity" if we can use these words when referring to HMRC going forward.

A happy new year to all

Good morning friends.

The man with the red suit has been and gone for another year, having once again done a sterling job, and we are left to say Happy New Year to all we meet. We are more than used to saying it but never really sure what it means or what it will bring.

2010 is without doubt going to be a seminal year, especially for those on this thread. 2010 is going to be the year when the Courts have to decide whether to encourage transparency by finding in favour of those who have been transparent on their tax returns over the years. For the Courts to find against those who have been transparent, and in favour of those that have abused their position of trust and authority and in the process been deceitful and dishonest, will send a clear message to the broader taxpaying public that "honesty does not pay".

Regardless of Henchman Hartnett's rhetoric, it is a simple step to conclude that there would be a resultant quantum shift away from compliance toward increasing aggressive schemes and probably evasion, through non-disclosure of income.

To have been transparent and declared all of our income for these last 8 years and then to be found to have effectively broken the law haa already and will continue to send an extremely poor message to potential inward investors to the UK. In simple terms both businesses and individuals need certainty in their expectations. Our tax planning was within the law when we did it. S58 retrospectively states that it was not. That is not a clarification, the right place to clarify is in a Court of Law. S58 deprived us of our rights to prove that what we did was within the law. The retrospective application of s58 is nothing other than state theft.

At the JR starting on 19 January 2010 the judiciary have the opportunity to start setting the record straight and to provide proper support for those that open and honest, whilst at the same time castigating those that are less so. A Judge with these principles at his/her heart should have no difficulty finding in favour of those abused whilst at the same time "clarifying" the true extent of the HR abuse by HMRC and HMT by not permitting any appeal, as such an appeal would not be in the public interest.

Happy New Year everyone! Thank you to DR. You're a legend. I look forward to meeting you at the Hearing.

[BrilloPad]

A happy new year to all and I am really looking forward to seeing HMRC squirm in January. Let hope we get a quick verdict afterwards(isn't it usually about 6 weeks to decide?) and that HMRC face the inevitable on throw the towel in afterwards.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Assessment of Compatibility

It is worth reflecting on what the JCHR said about the retrospective legislation (clause 67) in this year's finance bill.

In this case the period of retrospection was 3 months. A bit different than our 7 years!!!

http://www.publications.parliament.u...3/13304.htm#a4

Assessment of compatibility

1.16 In view of the close similarity of the two schemes, the fact that it is not in dispute that it was a particularly abusive scheme involving tax relief for contrived losses, the fact that the individuals entering into the scheme were aware of the closure of the earlier scheme and of the nature of what they were entering into, the substantial cost to the Exchequer, the limited degree of retrospectivity and the absence of any evidence of personal hardship caused by the retrospectivity of the relevant provision, we consider that the Government has discharged the burden of demonstrating that the limited degree of retrospectivity involved in clause 67 of the Bill is, in the circumstances, justified. We therefore do not propose to subject these provisions to any further scrutiny.

[Fred Bloggs]

If we were to lose this it would be a sham and a disgrace to man kind. The message would be sent out to all tax payers in this land "watch out, PAYE or self employed, business or sole trader, we can stitch you up retrospectviely and ruin your lives at any time, BEWARE"

It's already here, called IR35.