BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[Biggles]

Just what is a big salary....

I've just been reading the BBC News website (another busy day...) and noticed this article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8151355.stm

If you look at the bottom of the "So What Is A Big Salary?" section,
"contractors make up the ranks of of the really wealthy".

I must say, it certainly doesn't feel like it. It must be refering to those that are not on the verge of backruptcy brought on by HMRC then.

Mmmm. Are the BBC is league with HMRC?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

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

They have already closed the loophole going forward.

BN66 actually contained 2 separate provisions, one changing the law from 1987, and another changing it from 12th March 2008 onwards. All of the schemes ceased operating after 12th March.

It is almost like HMRC were hedging their bets as if they knew the retrospective provision might hit the rocks.

Removing the retrospection would have no effect on the situation as it stands now.

[Toocan]

They realise they've cocked up on this legislation and they'll learn from it .

Hu?

This is the civil service we're talking about. If they learned from their mistakes then there would be no loopholes. They don't learn - that is the problem.

[Toocan]

They have already closed the loophole going forward.

BN66 actually contained 2 separate provisions, one changing the law from 1987, and another changing it from 12th March 2008 onwards. All of the schemes ceased operating after 12th March.

It is almost like HMRC were hedging their bets as if they knew the retrospective provision might hit the rocks.

Removing the retrospection would have no effect on the situation as it stands now.

There is still some doubt as to whether the schemes *were* closed by the provisions going forward. It's a sticky point and I would not want to reply on it, but it is non-the-less arguable.

HMRC did not fully understand the situtaion when they wrote s.58. But I think we knew that already.

[Squicker]

They have already closed the loophole going forward.

BN66 actually contained 2 separate provisions, one changing the law from 1987, and another changing it from 12th March 2008 onwards. All of the schemes ceased operating after 12th March.

It is almost like HMRC were hedging their bets as if they knew the retrospective provision might hit the rocks.

Removing the retrospection would have no effect on the situation as it stands now.

I think HMRC knew full well the retrospective provisions would fold like a cheap deck chair if seriously challenged. But what do they care? It's not their own money they are using to fight it, they have successfully spread fear of using the IOM, some weaker people have coughed up and there was always the chance we may not have mounted a strong challenge.

However, we're not piss-weak, simple minded fools like Mr You Know Who and the rest of his quisling cohorts. We're intelligent people used to not only following processes, but designing them and improving them.

So they can all go f**k themselves as far as I am concerned.

When we've won this case, I look forward to a trip to Colombia where I shall be filmed snorting the whole lot off a hooker's back whilst shouting 'here's to you, Mr You Know Who!!'

[RockTheBoat]

When we've won this case, I look forward to a trip to Colombia where I shall be filmed snorting the whole lot off a hooker's back whilst shouting 'here's to you, Mr You Know Who!!'

funny thing is that I was going to do just that if we happen to lose

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Feedback please

A few of us have been toying with the idea of setting up a web site as a focus for the campaign eg. something like www.notoretro.org.uk

This would contain all the background info on the case, evidence that has been gathered so far, results of FOI requests, latest updates, status of JCHR & JR. It would be a bit like the first post of this thread:

http://forums.contractoruk.com/877547-post1.html

except more in-depth, better structured and generally more professional looking.

What do people think? Worth the effort/not worth the effort?

[Slobbo]

Website would be good.

Some advice Re FOI requests.

If you are getting bounced because the request is too expensive to comply with then keep the FOI request focused.

For example if you want the meeting minutes to do with BN66 then submit several requests. One for the meetings in June another for those in May etc.

That way each request can be fulfilled in the allocated time. They may of course deny the request based on something else but you can only but try.

[WhatEver]

Great idea , a good one-stop-shop when articulating the issue to MPs, accountancy organisations, contractors coming in from the cold etc. May be worth having a page of questions MP's should be answering but failing to do so. I would send this to my MP who's simply towing a line and not really getting involved or caring

[Ninja]

Website

Excellent idea, DR. Go for it