BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[Alba]

Although we are very confident in our case we still need to be ready for a knock back have plan B redy for action.

I think I am right in saying that MontP have said they will appeal and if HMRC starts to try and implement collection on closure notices MontP will appeal all the way to the House of Lords.

See below, we will no longer have the HoL's it will be the new Supreme Court, I wonder how and who they will work for!

The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 made provision for the creation of a new Supreme Court for the United Kingdom. There have, in recent years, been mounting calls for the creation of a new free standing Supreme Court separating the highest appeal court from the second house of Parliament, and removing the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary from the legislature. On 12 June 2003 the Government announced its intention to do so.

At present the most senior judges, the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, or Law Lords as they are often called, sit in the House of Lords. There are twelve of them. The House is the highest court in the land - the supreme court of appeal. It acts as the final court on points of law for the whole of the United Kingdom in civil cases and for England, Wales and Northern Ireland in criminal cases. Its decisions bind all courts below.

As members of the House of Lords, this means that they not only sit judicially, but are also able to become involved in the debate and subsequent enactment of Government legislation (although, in practice, they rarely do so). Creating a new Supreme Court will mean that the most senior judges will be entirely separate from the Parliamentary process.

It is important to be aware that the new Supreme Court will be a United Kingdom body legally separate from the England and Wales Courts since it will also be the Supreme Court of both Scotland and Northern Ireland. As such it falls outside of the remit of the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales in his role as head of the judiciary of England and Wales.

The new Supreme Court is scheduled to be open for business in October 2009.

[Lazylobster]

Got the lovely brown envelope last weekend. MontP have done a sterling job of an appeal letter.

It's certainly taken some time for Hector and chums to get this out the door.

At this rate, I'll be retired before I get the 07 -08 years. . . .

LL

[Fog]

Got the lovely brown envelope last weekend. MontP have done a sterling job of an appeal letter.

It's certainly taken some time for Hector and chums to get this out the door.

At this rate, I'll be retired before I get the 07 -08 years. . . .

LL

Was that your first letter?

[Lazylobster]

Was that your first letter?

Sure was.

LL

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

When is avoidance not avoidance?

When it's TRANSPARENT.

At least the Secretary-General of the OECD reckons.

Have a look at this:
http://www.offshore-fox.com/financia...king_0102.html


Donald Johnston, Secretary-General of the OECD, gave his views on the
difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance:

"I would like to be clear at the outset that the focus of the OECD's work
and our discussion today is tax evasion and illegal tax avoidance. I
personally was a tax lawyer for many years and I know these definitions
can be tricky."

"Tax evasion is easy: it involves breaking the law. By tax avoidance OECD
means unacceptable avoidance ... This can be contrasted with acceptable
tax planning. What is critical is transparency."

So there you have it. Providing your scheme is transparent, which it was then it was acceptable tax planning and not unacceptable avoidance.. Don't see what HMRC are so all up in arms about. I can't imagine they'd think that Mr. Johnston hasn't a clue.... Do I remember someone from HMT saying this scheme was unacceptable? Well, they need to confer with Mr J. and get their facts straight

[Fog]

Sure was.

LL

Sorry to hear. It is such a shock when you see it in black and white (or at least see the shabby brown 2nd class envelope)

Onwards and upwards to our day in court
Fog

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Mr. Timms spells it out

Have a read:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wms/?id=2009-06-29a.1WS.1

I particularly liked this passage:
The Government have consistently tackled avoidance since 1997—making reforms to the tax system, introducing the disclosure regime and closing legislative loopholes. We vigorously challenge tax avoidance, through the courts if necessary. The UK also plays a leading role in international efforts to counter avoidance through sharing of information and intelligence.

I can't seem to marry the word "consistent" with the laboured and protracted way they've dealt with this since 2001.

Rather odd that in this case, it is THEY who are being challenged through the courts. What a turn up! OK, he's referring to banks, but can you discriminate in different forms of "avoidance"?

Oh and there's their word again "transparency" in his dialogue. Keeps popping up. How much more transparent can a scheme be?

Ta Mr. Timms for making us feel so much more certain.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Impact Assessments

Try this (for a bit of fun).

Go to:
http://www.ialibrary.berr.gov.uk

Click on Search IA Library

Select >>Advanced Search

Select "HM Treasury" from the Department pull down.

Enter "tax avoidance" in the Keywords field and click >>Search


Now look at what the results find for HMT Impact Assessments...

"Unable to find any ideas that match your criteria."

Just about sums it up really... Clueless.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

HMRC transparency concerns

Oddly, I can believe it...

http://www.parasolgroup.co.uk/news/c...tion-concerns/

[Ninja]

Err... I found an IA, although it does say that the impact on people avoiding tax is "negligible". Me thinks different..........


http://www.ialibrary.berr.gov.uk/Imp...e2516ef8d787e4