BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Footnote

It's Election Year.

Given the political issues around tax rises to cover the massive National Debt and the contribution to it via QE, I doubt the masses will be too inspired by any Party who thinks that retrospective tax is a fair and proportionate way to replenish the coffers.

Plenty of folks are up for election in all walks of life and tax retrospection won't sit well with people if they find that it has carte blanche even if it's dubious as in this case.

Pause for thought to those in positions of authority.

[OnYourBikeGB]

I've just been mulling over the whole issue of what we can do next, if we win. But there must be something that we can leverage against the individuals that have set out to destroy our lives. If we win they will have illegally threatened us. They will have knowingly sent us threatening and intimidatory letters that were baseless. Some of us, myself included, will also have been threatened with an illegal asset seizure, which included threats to illegally enter my property.

Illegal and threatening behaviour ? If someone knowingly deliberately buried TN63, as we suspect, then surely we have a right to pursue them through the courts. Could this become a criminal matter? I doubt if MP would pursue on our behalf, but HMRC have caused me and my family so much stress over the past seven years with their lies and deceit, I'd love to bring it home to a few of them what it feels like to be persecuted. If it was intentionally buried, with a view to illegally stripping me of my property and assets by knowingly misrepresenting the law, is this not intent to defraud? Its certainly an abuse of power.

[NotAllThere]

If you think you can bring a case for Malfeasance of Office, then go for it.

[swede]

My thoughts on Brillo.

We all know that whatever gets posted here is subject to scrutiny, resides in the public domain etc. etc. And we know that the people running the site must abide by the laws of the land too. But please, for the love of god,

....just let Brillo back in. His input is too crucial to our cause.

This spat isn't doing anyone any favours. If there is a legitimate legal issue, then for everyone's sake on this forum, make a complaint to the relevant people who deal with such things, just sue someone, remove the offending posts, or do whatever it is you need to do.

If not, then for the sake of impartiality, please put the needs of the many above those of yours or his - this forum isn't about you two. Having to find someone else to host this discussion at this stage would be a real pain in the @rse, and you know it.

[silver_lining]

retrospection commentary...

found this

http://www.publications.parliament.u...ts/21/2104.htm

some interesting commentary on retrospection... references are also made to some of the cases that came to light during our review..

In addition found this, which maybe most are familiar...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/b...s-human-rights

some interesting quotes

'The measure is likely to raise a not insignificant amount of revenue (estimated to be about £0.55bn); it is part of a package of measures designed to address excessive risk-taking in the banking industry and to require banks to consider the soundness of their capital base; it is directed at banks rather than individual bankers; and it is intended to be a one-off tax, in place only until the more systemic reforms in the financial services bill come into force.
Nor is it likely that those who are most directly affected by the new tax will be able to demonstrate hardship amounting to an excessive individual burden.'

This in principal is similar to our case, although I am not sure if it falls squarely under retrospection.... are they taxing the bonus retro. i.e. for the whole tax year... ?

anyhow, the main point was the individual burden point. I only saw the summaries in court and wondered if Elvin rammed home the fact that burden could be demonstrated? As I know there was concern he did not refer to the JCHR.. ? anyone...

[DonkeyRhubarb]

found this

http://www.publications.parliament.u...ts/21/2104.htm

Good find SL.

To highlight a couple of quotes.

The powers of the state under this provision are recognised by the European Court of Human Rights to be very wide. They are not, however, unlimited. Taxing measures must satisfy the requirements of proportionality, but the threshold of justification to be met by the State is very much lower than in relation to other ECHR rights.

it is directed at banks rather than individual bankers

Proportionality is the key.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Judgement Day

Tomorrow morning at 9.30

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/list_admin.htm

COURT 10
Before MR JUSTICE KENNETH PARKER
Thursday 28 January, 2010
At half past 9
FOR JUDGMENT
HAND DOWN
CO/10012/2008 The Queen on the application of Huitson v HM Revenue & Customs

[portseven]

Tomorrow morning at 9.30

F**k Me that was quick!

[OnYourBikeGB]

Tomorrow morning at 9.30

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/list_admin.htm

COURT 10
Before MR JUSTICE KENNETH PARKER
Thursday 28 January, 2010
At half past 9
FOR JUDGMENT
HAND DOWN
CO/10012/2008 The Queen on the application of Huitson v HM Revenue & Customs

Holy sh*t. Whatever the decision is, it must be clearcut. Or he's worked weekends, errr weekend.

[Tynos]

Tomorrow morning at 9.30

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/list_admin.htm

COURT 10
Before MR JUSTICE KENNETH PARKER
Thursday 28 January, 2010
At half past 9
FOR JUDGMENT
HAND DOWN
CO/10012/2008 The Queen on the application of Huitson v HM Revenue & Customs

Excellent.
Let's hope he says this is a change to Padmore legislation rather than a clarification, and that the retrospective nature is excessive and breaches our Human Rights.