BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[SantaClaus]

I was going to call my baby girl something silly and then I realised I wasnt a celebrity

[SantaClaus]

Take a look at Martin Rosenbaum's Blog on the BBC website

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/

I checked it's not DR that they are referring to

Reading the above article, methinks we need to start submitting "Meta requests". Is their a C++ template for that?

[robinhood]

When Timm's response is received by the JCHR, do we know when this is likely to be put in the public domain or do we have to wait for a further update from JCHR to get the details

[KiwiGuy]

When Timm's response is received by the JCHR, do we know when this is likely to be put in the public domain or do we have to wait for a further update from JCHR to get the details

It will probably go like this

Dear Mr JCHR.

Computer says 'No'...Cough!!

Regards

Mr El "Rob from everyone give to my second home" Timms

[DonkeyRhubarb]

When Timm's response is received by the JCHR, do we know when this is likely to be put in the public domain or do we have to wait for a further update from JCHR to get the details

I have a good rapport with the commons clerk who runs the committee, so hopefully I will hear something before Timms reply is put on their website.

Timms reply is due by next Tuesday. I suspect the Treasury may ask for an extension.

[robinhood]

I have a good rapport with the commons clerk who runs the committee, so hopefully I will hear something before Timms reply is put on their website.

Timms reply is due by next Tuesday. I suspect the Treasury may ask for an extension.

Until after the JR !!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Until after the JR !!

I'm sure they would like that but that ain't going to fly. There is no point them asking for an extension for the sake of it because it won't buy them any "useful" time.

What else can they bring to the table that would be so compelling that it would change the Committee's mind? The Committee has reviewed last year's debate. They have seen JK's rebuttal to the CIOT. They've had a copy of Timms standard letter. What else is there?

The only thing I can think of that the Treasury could say is that they don't accept the Committee's view and they will leave it in the hands of the courts (JR) to decide.

[When pigs fly]
Of course, they could agree to abide by the Committee's conclusion and repeal the legislation.
[/When pigs fly]

[Emigre]

[When pigs fly]
Of course, they could agree to abide by the Committee's conclusion and repeal the legislation.
[/When pigs fly]

Is that something to do with swine flu?

[robinhood]

I'm sure they would like that but that ain't going to fly. There is no point them asking for an extension for the sake of it because it won't buy them any "useful" time.

What else can they bring to the table that would be so compelling that it would change the Committee's mind? The Committee has reviewed last year's debate. They have seen JK's rebuttal to the CIOT. They've had a copy of Timms standard letter. What else is there?

The only thing I can think of that the Treasury could say is that they don't accept the Committee's view and they will leave it in the hands of the courts (JR) to decide.

[When pigs fly]
Of course, they could agree to abide by the Committee's conclusion and repeal the legislation.
[/When pigs fly]

It's difficult to see how HRMC can possibly win this. The JR surely can't go against the recommendations from the JCHR and contradict them on the HR angle.

I reckon HRMC will try and come to a negotiated settlement of some sort.
They realise they've cocked up on this legislation and they'll learn from it .

[DaveB]

My guess is that they will cut their losses and remove the retrospection then close the "loophole" for the future.