BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[DonkeyRhubarb]

New formula for interest on late payment

In future, when we owe them money it will be bank base rate +2.5%. When they owe us money it's bank base -1%. Seems fair.

http://www.taxationweb.co.uk/tax-new...e-formula.html

And don't expect to be let off the hook if someone has died either.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/p...increased.html

Anyway, bottom line of all this is that interest on late payment is due to rise from 2.5% to 3% from next month.

[OnYourBikeGB]

The £200m question

Saturday morning and bored, I thought I'd enter INLAND REVENUE 200M into Google for a UK search. 2710 hits! Wow! They'll be rolling in it. There was one link caught my eye:

http://www.computing.co.uk/computing...-retrospective

all about us and the JCHR. But there was a line in it from Timms I hadn't seen before, but maybe I just missed it:

Treasury financial secretary Stephen Timms told MPs in a written Parliamentary answer that £200m in tax is at stake and formal impact assessments were not made "where the impact is only on those who are avoiding tax".

Is that not the opposite of what he had originally said? That they had thoroughly considered the implications? I'll have to tell my wife to stop worrying now, because Timm's says she's not affected. That's a weight off my mind, thanks Lurch!

[PlaneSailing]

Spanner

Saturday morning and bored, I thought I'd enter INLAND REVENUE 200M into Google for a UK search. 2710 hits! Wow! They'll be rolling in it. There was one link caught my eye:

http://www.computing.co.uk/computing...-retrospective

all about us and the JCHR. But there was a line in it from Timms I hadn't seen before, but maybe I just missed it:

Treasury financial secretary Stephen Timms told MPs in a written Parliamentary answer that £200m in tax is at stake and formal impact assessments were not made "where the impact is only on those who are avoiding tax".

Is that not the opposite of what he had originally said? That they had thoroughly considered the implications? I'll have to tell my wife to stop worrying now, because Timm's says she's not affected. That's a weight off my mind, thanks Lurch!

Yes that's right Mr Timms seems to swerve between 'we don't need to make
a formal assessment' to 'we've given this matter thorough consideration'.

I've made an FOI request to see the 'thorough' consideration but surprisingly
they can't forward minutes of the meetings because they don't think it's
in the public interest.

I pointed out that Timms said that BN66 was in the public interest so
surely they should send me the minutes as they can't have it both ways!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Human Rights

I've made an FOI request to see the 'thorough' consideration but surprisingly
they can't forward minutes of the meetings because they don't think it's
in the public interest.

They won't even release BN66 documents that refer to Human Rights because apparently that's not in the public interest either.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...8_human_rights

The only interest that is being served here is the self-serving bastards in the Treasury and HMRC.

[anxious1]

They won't even release BN66 documents that refer to Human Rights because apparently that's not in the public interest either.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...8_human_rights

The only interest that is being served here is the self-serving bastards in the Treasury and HMRC.

Part 8 of the replay says 'those affected by the change in the legislation' - so are they now admitting it's a change & giving up on the 'clarification' cobblers? I like the first sentence about transparency & openness with regard to informing public opinion - they could easily have added an extra bit - 'that's why we are so keen to avoid it'.

[MissPiggy]

A very bad weekend ..

Hi all .. I've been lurking for a couple of of months - afraid not felt I could contribute much - but I'm blown away with your efforts to fight our corner and very grateful for them. So I apologise in advance for making the first post a begging letter ..

Just had a horrible moment and really looking for some advice ..

Got a hefty debt demand from HMRC Saturday morning out of the blue - couldn't understand why not received closure notices etc like I've read from others here - but what do you know, there in a pile of junk mail sits an unread re-calc of 05/06/07 returns giving me 30 days to appeal. That expired 10th Aug - crikey, what should I do now ? Will speak to MP 1st thing Monday of course, but not going to sleep well tonight.

Cheers

[Emigre]

Back from holidays...

Seems that the silent one has continued to fail to answer any questions. Whilst away I received the standard dismissive response from the **** in Horse Guards Road.

I asked 14 specific questions and got the following edited response from an Assistant Private Secretary:

"...As the issues you raise will be considered fully at the substantive judicial review hearing I am sure that you will appreciate that it would be inappropriate for me to respond in detail to you at this time"

"I should add that the Government took full account of the Convention rights before introducing the legislation in question, and considers that the legislation is fully compliant with those rights".

A number of issues arise:

Firstly, my letter pre-dated the granting of the JR by nearly 3 weeks (yes, I just got the reply!).

Secondly, these guys are the defendants in the JR. Are they confirming that they WILL address each and every question fully, even if it is not asked?!! I doubt it! Once again, we have been fed a pack of lies.

Finally, once again we get bit about taking full account of the Convention without it seems performing an Impact Assessment but that's ok guys because "the legislation is fully compliant with those rights".

Question: The JR has not been listed. Therefore, surely he is not entitled to use the JR as an excuse for not replying? Thoughts?

[Fog]

Hi all .. I've been lurking for a couple of of months - afraid not felt I could contribute much - but I'm blown away with your efforts to fight our corner and very grateful for them. So I apologise in advance for making the first post a begging letter ..

Just had a horrible moment and really looking for some advice ..

Got a hefty debt demand from HMRC Saturday morning out of the blue - couldn't understand why not received closure notices etc like I've read from others here - but what do you know, there in a pile of junk mail sits an unread re-calc of 05/06/07 returns giving me 30 days to appeal. That expired 10th Aug - crikey, what should I do now ? Will speak to MP 1st thing Monday of course, but not going to sleep well tonight.

Cheers

Get in touch with MP straight away - they are very good with these situations. They should respond on your behalf.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Hi all .. I've been lurking for a couple of of months - afraid not felt I could contribute much - but I'm blown away with your efforts to fight our corner and very grateful for them. So I apologise in advance for making the first post a begging letter ..

Just had a horrible moment and really looking for some advice ..

Got a hefty debt demand from HMRC Saturday morning out of the blue - couldn't understand why not received closure notices etc like I've read from others here - but what do you know, there in a pile of junk mail sits an unread re-calc of 05/06/07 returns giving me 30 days to appeal. That expired 10th Aug - crikey, what should I do now ? Will speak to MP 1st thing Monday of course, but not going to sleep well tonight.

Cheers

I have just spoken to MP, and there is no need to panic. They have had a few late ones before and HMRC have accepted all of them.

However, don't delay. Call them straight away.

[PlaneSailing]

Back from holidays...

Seems that the silent one has continued to fail to answer any questions. Whilst away I received the standard dismissive response from the **** in Horse Guards Road.
...
"I should add that the Government took full account of the Convention rights before introducing the legislation in question, and considers that the legislation is fully compliant with those rights".

A number of issues arise:

...
Finally, once again we get bit about taking full account of the Convention without it seems performing an Impact Assessment but that's ok guys because "the legislation is fully compliant with those rights".

Question: The JR has not been listed. Therefore, surely he is not entitled to use the JR as an excuse for not replying? Thoughts?

It doesn't look as if the Joint Commision on Human Rights believes
the Govenrment toof full account of convention rights! I think this
may be the biggest lie in the whole of your letter.

I wonder if Mr. Timms' constituents are aware of his opinions
on Human Rights.....