BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Due Diligence needed

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

Not if you search under HM Treasury as opposed to HMRC. And I do recall that BN66 came out of HMT or at least that is what legislation implies....

I cannot believe (sic) that HMRC design tax legislation and ask HMT to implement it. I thought HMT devised it and HMRC implemented it. Could I be wrong? Surely not...

[Emigre]

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

"Description and scale of key monetised costs by 'main affected groups':
The expected impact overall is small as it affects only the limited number of tax advisory firms and taxpayers who are involved with disclosed schemes, though there will be some initial costs as promoters/taxpayers become familiar with the new rules. Since this measure brings greater certainty, it will reduce the time taken to decide on whether to report using a scheme."

Er, so who is lying then? Would that be Jane Kennedy about the number of people on our scheme or oh Jane kennedy in this IA (dated 14 May 2008). Ok so now we know what we already knew, that Jane Kennedy was nothing other than a self-serving liar and it would appear has deliberately mislead Parliament, a treasonable act for which I believe the death sentence is still available. This seems both fair and proportionate.

[smalldog]

I think we and HMRC all know that:

- No assessment has been made on the financial impacts by anyone, apart from us, the people actually affected

- They havent ever consistently made the case that the scheme doesnt work, this was only passed by parliament under a cloud of deceit and HMRC manipulating ministers to get it thru. So ministers dont scrutinise, they seem to jsut trust HMRC. Hopefully this case will help to illustrate they cant be trusted, someone will be held to account for not being thorough enough

- £200m is a totally fabricated number which stupidly this government is happy to use for every single justification, which makes it glaringly obvious its got no merit or credibility

- HMRC have lied all the way thru this just to get their revenge on us all, gonna catch up with them of course. Theyre gonna get roasted in the JR

- The use of "Not in the public interest" by HMRC is an interesting one. I think the public would be very interested in the outright lying and deceit that's taken and continues to take place

and lastly but by no means least, HMRC and HMT massively under estimated the resolve of the people affected. They thought we would just rollover and pay, dear oh dear...now they really are in the sh*te

[Emigre]

I think we and HMRC all know that:

- No assessment has been made on the financial impacts by anyone, apart from us, the people actually affected

- They havent ever consistently made the case that the scheme doesnt work, this was only passed by parliament under a cloud of deceit and HMRC manipulating ministers to get it thru. So ministers dont scrutinise, they seem to jsut trust HMRC. Hopefully this case will help to illustrate they cant be trusted, someone will be held to account for not being thorough enough

- £200m is a totally fabricated number which stupidly this government is happy to use for every single justification, which makes it glaringly obvious its got no merit or credibility

- HMRC have lied all the way thru this just to get their revenge on us all, gonna catch up with them of course. Theyre gonna get roasted in the JR

- The use of "Not in the public interest" by HMRC is an interesting one. I think the public would be very interested in the outright lying and deceit that's taken and continues to take place

and lastly but by no means least, HMRC and HMT massively under estimated the resolve of the people affected. They thought we would just rollover and pay, dear oh dear...now they really are in the sh*te

[Lazylobster]

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

Not worried ol bean, knew it was coming etc. but, each dog has it's day. . . .

LL

[deckster]

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

Surely that IA considers the impact of changes to the disclosure scheme itself, not the impact of the closure of any particular avoidance loopholes. As such I'd tend to agree the impact of disclosure is negligible.

[smalldog]

Surely that IA considers the impact of changes to the disclosure scheme itself, not the impact of the closure of any particular avoidance loopholes. As such I'd tend to agree the impact of disclosure is negligible.

yep, thats how I read it too. All about scheme disclosure rules, nothing to do with BN66

[Emigre]

Surely that IA considers the impact of changes to the disclosure scheme itself, not the impact of the closure of any particular avoidance loopholes. As such I'd tend to agree the impact of disclosure is negligible.

yep, thats how I read it too. All about scheme disclosure rules, nothing to do with BN66

Yes, you are both right. It does not directly relate to us. However, the wording within the IA states "the limited number of tax advisory firms and taxpayers who are involved with disclosed schemes". This is in complete contradiction to the words that the same author, Jane Kennedy, used to justify the use of BN66 and retrospection when she addressed the Treasury Committee.

As such it may provide us with some ammunition to demonstrate the true extent of her knowledge and how she deliberately mislead Parliament.

Dear Jane. Do you have a preference for colour of rope? (Sorry, not expensible). Any last requests?

[smalldog]

I like her "Now I hope I have this completely right"....

No Luv, you couldnt have it anymore wrong and you should have F**king checked if you werent sure before convincing parliament to agree legislation without ALL the facts!!! now step upto the gallows please....as the government and HMRC always tell us, "ignorance is no excuse"

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

"Description and scale of key monetised costs by 'main affected groups':
The expected impact overall is small as it affects only the limited number of tax advisory firms and taxpayers who are involved with disclosed schemes, though there will be some initial costs as promoters/taxpayers become familiar with the new rules. Since this measure brings greater certainty, it will reduce the time taken to decide on whether to report using a scheme."

Er, so who is lying then? Would that be Jane Kennedy about the number of people on our scheme or oh Jane kennedy in this IA (dated 14 May 2008). Ok so now we know what we already knew, that Jane Kennedy was nothing other than a self-serving liar and it would appear has deliberately mislead Parliament, a treasonable act for which I believe the death sentence is still available. This seems both fair and proportionate.

Emigre. Nearly right. It is an act of treason (allegedly )to deliberatley mislead the Monarch. Royal Assent is assumed and given on the sure knowledge that misleading or misrepresentation has not occured.

I wonder why the bloke who has not paid any tax for 5 years by demanding he be taken to court on the basis of government treason has anything to it?