BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[Jools86]

Good Luck

Just to wish all you guys the best - long term lurker interested in case...

I hope HMRC gets whats coming to them

[DonkeyRhubarb]

On the subject of letter writing. Is there any mileage in restarting that campaign, given the new situation i.e. the judge dismissed out of hand BN66 being a 'clarification', as it was described in the legislation that was put before parliament. HMRC have now been 'outed', what they've done (what we always knew) is change a 20 year old law and then hit 2000 families with massive tax bills based on the rewritten law.

Until we get a ruling, I don't think we'll get any mileage out of our elected (so-called) representatives. At the moment anything we write to them would just be our interpretation.

I say we hold off until the ruling and then absolutely bombard them.

[zippo]

Thanks....

Thanks to everyone who posted updates on the JR.

Special thanks to DR and everyone else who has helped in getting us this far !!

[FredBasset]

Another delurker...

Hello all, long time lurker here.

Hi Donkey we've corresponded by e-mail before, Bunny says hi to Dilbert.

I'd agree about not going to a private forum. Whilst I've only just registered here I did all the letter writing etc and know of at least 5 others lurking here. As you say we may lose people this way.

Well done and a very big thanks to all for the updates over the last couple of days

Regards
Fred

[SantaClaus]

...
The Judge has agreed that Padmore doesnt apply to our case, so the claim from the Revenue that they were "clarifying" existing law isn't true.
...

I only made the summary on Day 2.

Did the Judge actually say that, did any scribe down exactly his words....? As I really think this is significant regardless.....

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but this is what I thought I heard.
Can't wait to get my hands on the official transcript if it appears online.

[smalldog]

our posts

I find it totally hilarious posts from a public forum were used in HMRC's defense!!!! thats amazing, they could be posts from some lunatic pretending to be on the scheme, or god forbid they could be from someone malicious trying to influence the outcome, not mentioning any names of course...... How on earth can they be credible submissions?? Im surprised the judge didnt laugh Singh out of court to be honest....

You know even if we lose the JR on the grounds of ECHR, now that the judge ruled it as not being a clarification could the commissioners actually enforce it, as it has now been classified as retrospective...??

[travellingknob]

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but this is what I thought I heard.
Can't wait to get my hands on the official transcript if it appears online.

earlier comments: i.e. the judge dismissed out of hand BN66 being a 'clarification'


I think your jumping to concusions that the Judges words around that being final. The ruling has yet to be determined !

You need to understand that questions of whether the scheme 'worked' or whether Padmore applies in any way whatsoever are very important to the outcome. The judge has to tie in all the implications of what his decision is. This is not a one line answer and the Judge will make comments throughtout his ruling about the whole case not just an element of it.

He might change his initial opinion during his deliberations as he has not yet handed down a ruling he can perfectly well do that. The revenue has not simply closed the issue of whether the scheme worked or not. They continue to maintain it didn't and that Padmore applies.

Given whats been reported it sounds likely the whole emphasis will move away from that somewhat but fandamentally BN66 quoted Padmore as the reason for retrospection and that has to be in the ruling or how could a conclusion be reached ?

DR I think your earlier post about what the Judge has to consider in making his ruling are spot on.

Whatever his comments are when making his ruling will have to be addressed in any appeal !

[Rhydd]

"Clarification"

MKing: you say:

"In the case of BN66 the subtlety lies in whether it is a "clarification" or an "amendment" of legislation. As a clarification, they are entitled to tax retrospectively because the legislation was in place but not clear (hence clarification) - except to someone highly expert in the field".

Is it really the case that they can tax people using legislation that is unclear?

[swede]

on the subject of appeals....

how long is that process? as long as the JR? quicker?

[SantaClaus]

earlier comments: i.e. the judge dismissed out of hand BN66 being a 'clarification'


I think your jumping to concusions that the Judges words around that being final. The ruling has yet to be determined !

You need to understand that questions of whether the scheme 'worked' or whether Padmore applies in any way whatsoever are very important to the outcome. The judge has to tie in all the implications of what his decision is. This is not a one line answer and the Judge will make comments throughtout his ruling about the whole case not just an element of it.

He might change his initial opinion during his deliberations as he has not yet handed down a ruling he can perfectly well do that. The revenue has not simply closed the issue of whether the scheme worked or not. They continue to maintain it didn't and that Padmore applies.

Given whats been reported it sounds likely the whole emphasis will move away from that somewhat but fandamentally BN66 quoted Padmore as the reason for retrospection and that has to be in the ruling or how could a conclusion be reached ?

DR I think your earlier post about what the Judge has to consider in making his ruling are spot on.

Whatever his comments are when making his ruling will have to be addressed in any appeal !

OK, well thanks for correcting me on that one, but I think the Judge wouldnt pass comment unless it mattered.

Does anyone who was actually there have the Judge's exact words? It was hard to hear that part from the upper gallery.