BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[TykeMerc]

We have them on our side too...it doesnt matter what side of the fence you are on, whether you think we were justified in utilising legislation to reduce our tax bill, or you think we are a bunch of cheating tulips its irrelevant...the time delay is the issue!!!

That's why I've supported you folks since I became aware of the issues.

I'm no supporter of esoteric tax planning, but I deeply object to unjust laws and retrospection over such a protracted period is blatantly unjust.

[seadog]

That's why I've supported you folks since I became aware of the issues.

I'm no supporter of esoteric tax planning, but I deeply object to unjust laws and retrospection over such a protracted period is blatantly unjust.

Thanks for your support over the retrospective issue, but lets examine your comment about not supporting esoteric tax planning in more detail.

We have talked on this blog about the difference betwen tax avoidance and tax evasion. Tax evasion is illegal but tax avoidance or to use its proper title tax planning is a perfectly legitimale excercise which every tax payer ought and is entitled to practice.

Buying ISA's, inhertitance planning and setting up Trusts for children are just three well known tax planning scheme which do nothing other than save tax.

I could mention many more tax planning schemes which are approved by HMRC, some have only one benefit such as the three above but that does not make them aggresive or abusive.

The government are regulary setting up tax saving schemes. Premium bonds and National Savings are just two.

So I don't think the argument against tax planning is quite so clear cut as some critics, politicians and HMRC would like to have you believe.

[nuffsaid]

Hello ?

Anyone there?
No postings for 3 days now, I'm beginning to thing that I'm the only person that isn't on holiday!

[silver_lining]

Anyone there?
No postings for 3 days now, I'm beginning to thing that I'm the only person that isn't on holiday!

yeah, we are due to a large emotional swing of positive/ negative...

come on DR we need our Fix....

[PlaneSailing]

Still here.

Hector can't carry on harassing me without my PAYE.

[smalldog]

still here just chewing on my bone as a small dog should

[DonkeyRhubarb]

yeah, we are due to a large emotional swing of positive/ negative...

come on DR we need our Fix....

Nothing much to report at the moment. We are still waiting for the JCHR to publish Timms' response and say what their next step will be. Unfortunately my contact is on holiday until next week.

The committee's report on UK complicity in torture seems to be getting quite a lot of press attention.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8188307.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8182404.stm

The committee also looked at other cases where British men, two of whom have been convicted of terror offences, say they were visited by British intelligence officers while they were detained and allegedly mistreated by Pakistani authorities.

But in all the cases, the parliamentary committee said it could not get to the facts because too many questions were not being properly answered.

It said that both the foreign secretary and home secretary, as well as the director general of MI5, had declined to give evidence on what was known about torture or mistreatment.

The ministers appeared "determined to avoid parliamentary scrutiny", said the report, and had batted away important questions with standardised answers.

Committee chairman Andrew Dismore MP said: "The allegations we have heard about UK complicity in torture are extremely serious.

"It is unacceptable both for ministers to refuse to answer policy questions about the security services, and for the director general of MI5 to answer questions from the press but not from a Parliamentary committee."

[smalldog]

Nothing much to report at the moment. We are still waiting for the JCHR to publish Timms' response and say what their next step will be. Unfortunately my contact is on holiday until next week.

The committee's report on UK complicity in torture seems to be getting quite a lot of press attention.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8188307.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8182404.stm

The committee also looked at other cases where British men, two of whom have been convicted of terror offences, say they were visited by British intelligence officers while they were detained and allegedly mistreated by Pakistani authorities.

But in all the cases, the parliamentary committee said it could not get to the facts because too many questions were not being properly answered.

It said that both the foreign secretary and home secretary, as well as the director general of MI5, had declined to give evidence on what was known about torture or mistreatment.

The ministers appeared "determined to avoid parliamentary scrutiny", said the report, and had batted away important questions with standardised answers.

Committee chairman Andrew Dismore MP said: "The allegations we have heard about UK complicity in torture are extremely serious.

"It is unacceptable both for ministers to refuse to answer policy questions about the security services, and for the director general of MI5 to answer questions from the press but not from a Parliamentary committee."

DR althought the JCHR criticise, does it stop there, is that all they can do about the abuse? Or do they actually have some teeth..? What concerns me about the JCHR slightly is that they can criticse Timms et al about not responding to this and that but are actually powerless to do anything about it. For instance can they propose a parliamentary member get struck off, or a piece of legislation gets revoked on the basis of non- compliance or is it a proverbial slap on the wrist?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Question

Do we want to try and persuade the Treasury Committee to examine s.58 on the back of the JCHR investigation?

The remit of this select committee is described here. There is also a link to their most recent reports.
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamenta..._committee.cfm

Pros
1) There is the potential to generate more criticism of Treasury & HMRC handling of this.
2) They may have more influence over the Treasury than the JCHR.[/LIST]

Cons
a) They did examine BN66 last year but let the Government off the hook, so they may just try to cover their backsides.
b) The Chairman is reportedly a loyal Brownite, although he was very critical of Darling's recent budget.
c) The committee is made up of a majority of Labour MPs

Opinions?

[Lazylobster]

Do we want to try and persuade the Treasury Committee to examine s.58 on the back of the JCHR investigation?

The remit of this select committee is described here. There is also a link to their most recent reports.
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamenta..._committee.cfm

Pros
1) There is the potential to generate more criticism of Treasury & HMRC handling of this.
2) They may have more influence over the Treasury than the JCHR.[/LIST]

Cons
a) They did examine BN66 last year but let the Government off the hook, so they may just try to cover their backsides.
b) The Chairman is reportedly a loyal Brownite, although he was very critical of Darling's recent budget.
c) The committee is made up of a majority of Labour MPs

Opinions?

I think my question would be what would / could the JCHR do if they investigate and find in our favor ? If they found in HMCE's favor, would this have a severe impact on the JR ?

LL: