BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[TheBarCapBoyz]

By the time the JR rules on this, plus any appeals have been heard, there will
be a Tory Government.

Difficult to see how or why they would uphold retrospective legislation that is incompatible with the ECHR when that legislation was introduced by the previous incumbents.

Simples.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

By the time the JR rules on this, plus any appeals have been heard, there will
be a Tory Government.

Difficult to see how or why they would uphold retrospective legislation that is incompatible with the ECHR when that legislation was introduced by the previous incumbents.

Simples.

I couldn't have put it better myself.

[Squicker]

IR Cockup

Brilliant news from the JCHR, well done DR, top bloke

HMRC today have sent me a demand for tax, with a warning of distraint proceedings. This is for two late filing penalties of 100uk each, from 2005, some tax owed from a recently appealed CN and some new tax, which is late as it's under question.

Now, the two penalties were paid way back in 2005 or so, the other tax is under appeal anyway.

I've mailed Montpelier and will speak to HMRC on Monday as they, HMRC that is, were predictably not answering their phones at 17:01. Workshy slobs. Any other suggestions on how to proceed?

Thanks all

[Cornish Cream]

What news to get after a tulip week at work - Well done DR - I feel a few sherberts coming on... :-)

[BrilloPad]

Any other suggestions on how to proceed?

I will PM you.

[Richard Splash]

Clearly, you don't want to wake a sleeping dog by asking them

You need to register to look at your account online. It will be obvious from there what the position is regarding your account. Also, if they had issued CNs that you have not received, you would not have appealed them and they would have sent the bailiffs round.

Have you received notice that any of your tax years are under investigation?

Good to see admin on the ball here

Indeed, as you say, let the financially sucking dog lie, or at least give it a sedative to help it sleep.
In answer to your 'Q' Yes I have recieved notice for the years that I am under investigation but as of yet no indication of CN despite that fact that MP sent them the closure of accounts...
I just don't want to give these buggers any inch because I know they will take the psychological mile...

[ASB]

Given a definitive breach of the HRA, can the ECHR force a change in the law?

In absolute terms no. Parliament is sovereign and they can ignore the ECHR. The French are quite good at this (we have been too).

But.....

In practical terms, yes. You need to keep chipping away a bit and the stakes gradually get raised until the choice is either capitulate or withdraw from the EU.

[poppy01]

excerpt from letter from JCHR to Timms :-

'I would therefore be grateful if you could provide my Committee with a memorandum setting out a detailed assessment of the impact of s. 58 Finance Act 2008 on those affected, and explaining the Government's detailed justification for the provision having retrospective effect. Please include in your memorandum evidence that, throughout the entire period 1987 to 2008, HMRC has consistently made the case that the avoidance scheme in question does not work.'

I cant imagine how Timms can fulfil either of these requests, since neither was ever done. What possible excuses will he come up with. Can't wait since whatever he says will reinforce our case.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

excerpt from letter from JCHR to Timms :-

'(1) I would therefore be grateful if you could provide my Committee with a memorandum setting out a detailed assessment of the impact of s. 58 Finance Act 2008 on those affected, and explaining the Government's detailed justification for the provision having retrospective effect. (2) Please include in your memorandum evidence that, throughout the entire period 1987 to 2008, HMRC has consistently made the case that the avoidance scheme in question does not work.'

(1) Parliamentary answer from Stephen Timms

"Formal impact assessments are not published in respect of measures where the impact is only on those who are avoiding tax and thus one was not published for this particular measure [section 58]."

(2) Jane Kennedy to the Treasury Committee

"It is because HMRC has not consistently made the case throughout the time period that the scheme does not work..."

Compare the wording of the JCHR's request (2) and Jane Kennedy's statement to the Treasury Committee.

[Emigre]

I just don't want to give these buggers any inch because I know they will take the psychological mile...

I'm not sure about the psychological mile...they consistently take the proverbial p*ss.