BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[bombaycat]

hector loses again!!

http://www.contractoruk.com/news/004497.html

[DonkeyRhubarb]

8 FOI requests so far

Any more takers? I have just amended the wording a bit.

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...i-request.html

Some people have asked if the website http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/new/19
is run by the Government.

The answer is NO, it is operated by an independent Charity. In fact the Government doesn't like it because it exposes their lack of transparency and openness. They would prefer if FOI requests were kept private.

[SantaClaus]

http://www.contractoruk.com/news/004497.html

I hope the contractor is able to sue the Revenue for the distress caused.

Maybe sometime in the future, we will be able to start a class action against the Revenue of our own.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Update on FOI

With reference to:
http://forums.contractoruk.com/921181-post486.html

I sent this to HM Treasury today.

Dear Sir or Madam,

With regard to ... I would now like to lodge a formal complaint.

If I have not received the outcome of the internal review by Friday 28th August, I will be filing a complaint with the Information Commissioner at 9am on Tuesday 1st September. This will have given you a total of 53 working days to carry out the review, which is way outside of the IC's 40-day limit for exceptional cases.

Please acknowledge by return that you have received this.

Yours faithfully,

[Fisherman]

FOI Request

Hi All

Just sent mine off, hopefully it will help to cause some movement.

We must be starting to anoy some one by now, hopefully !!!!

Cheers
Peter

[swede]

FOI Request

Done.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Hi All

Just sent mine off, hopefully it will help to cause some movement.

We must be starting to anoy some one by now, hopefully !!!!

Cheers

Good stuff.

I've modified the wording again so we don't get too many the same.

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...i-request.html

[DonkeyRhubarb]

NEWS FLASH - Timms' response to the JCHR

(All credit to Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing who obtained a copy of the letter from the JCHR and forwarded it on to me.)

Pathetic or what!!!

Thank you for your letter of 7th July in which you ask for a memorandum on s58 FA2008. In particular, a detailed assessment of the impact of the legislation, detailed justification for retrospective effect, and evidence that HMRC had consistently made the case that the avoidance scheme does not work.

By way of background, this legislation retrospectively clarifies pre-existing anti-avoidance legislation which was itself introduced with retrospective effect. The retrospective aspect of the legislation is the subject of a number of applications for judicial review – a main element of which is the quest for a declaration of incompatibility of that retrospective apect with the European Convention on Human Rights. Permission for a review was granted by the High Court on 16th June for one of those cases. HMRC is in the process of preparing its formal defence with a hearing likely towards the end of this year.

In the circumstances, I wonder if you and the committee would be content that, rather than providing the memorandum you have requested, HMRC undertakes to keep you informed about the progress of the case.

Your report also recommends that in the future a memorandum be provided to the Committee identifying provisions in the Finance Bill which have retrospective effect. I am willing to consider this, but as I’m sure you will appreciate, I will need to discuss further with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice and elsewhere.

[Lazylobster]

(All credit to Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing who obtained a copy of the letter from the JCHR and forwarded it on to me.)

Pathetic or what!!!

Thank you for your letter of 7th July in which you ask for a memorandum on s58 FA2008. In particular, a detailed assessment of the impact of the legislation, detailed justification for retrospective effect, and evidence that HMRC had consistently made the case that the avoidance scheme does not work.

By way of background, this legislation retrospectively clarifies pre-existing anti-avoidance legislation which was itself introduced with retrospective effect. The retrospective aspect of the legislation is the subject of a number of applications for judicial review – a main element of which is the quest for a declaration of incompatibility of that retrospective apect with the European Convention on Human Rights. Permission for a review was granted by the High Court on 16th June for one of those cases. HMRC is in the process of preparing its formal defence with a hearing likely towards the end of this year.

In the circumstances, I wonder if you and the committee would be content that, rather than providing the memorandum you have requested, HMRC undertakes to keep you informed about the progress of the case.

Your report also recommends that in the future a memorandum be provided to the Committee identifying provisions in the Finance Bill which have retrospective effect. I am willing to consider this, but as I’m sure you will appreciate, I will need to discuss further with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice and elsewhere.

I hope the JCHR tell him where to go !

[Emigre]

Dear Mr Timms,

I have just read your reply to the JCHR.

I am astounded by the arrogance of your reply, and your utter disregard for the taxpayers whose lives your ill-advised legislation has blighted. I know you are a religious man, and if you sleep well tonight I trust you will spare a thought for all those who, having planned their affairs in accordance with the law, are now facing bankruptcy, ill-health and marital breakdown.

Please be assured that, no matter what the choice of parties in the next election, my vote and the vote of thousands like me, who have experienced your ineptitude and thuggery, will be cast against your party.

Indeed, in the full spirit of acceptable religious practices, may you and your party be cast out and stoned to death to no longer blight this recently great nation.