BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[TheBarCapBoyz]

I can't say I'm a big fan of the Daily Mail but what the hell...

It is a pretty miserable newspaper.

However, Peter Oborne is one of the better political journalists around.

And he has been gunning for MPs for ages over expenses. I would expect him to take a great deal of interest in BN66, if only for its demonstration of MPs' greed & hypocracy.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Frank Field still doesn't get it

http://frankfield.co.uk/blog/q/date/...enses-pile-up/

Robert Verkaik in today's Independent goes further. He argues that Sir Thomas Legg's decision is not akin to retrospective changes to the criminal law, but to the changing of tax loopholes or windfall charges on corporations who have benefited from unintended legislative consequences.

The charges arising from the closing of tax loopholes, however, are never retrospectively imposed.

What planet has this guy been living on?

[swede]

Reply from JCHR

Just received one of these...?

The Committee considered this reply at its meeting on 13 October. Matters which are before the courts are normally not raised in parliamentary proceedings under the terms of the sub judice resolutions passed by both Houses of Parliament. This restriction does not apply to judicial review proceedings where a ministerial decision is in question. Nevertheless, the Committee was not surprised to hear that HMRC was reluctant to engage in parliamentary scrutiny of a matter which is also before the courts. In the Committee's view, a further demand for information is very likely to lead to a firmer refusal. It therefore decided not to insist on its request for a memorandum at this stage.
The Committee remains concerned that there are doubts about the human rights compatibility of section 58. The Chair will respond to Mr Timms shortly, to express the Committee's disappointment at his reluctance to provide a memorandum and to take up his offer of information on the progress of the case. The correspondence is likely to be published with the Committee's report on its work in 2008-09, around the turn of the year, and I will draw the attention of those MPs who have raised this issue with the Committee to the relevant parts of the report. I will ensure that [JCHR's] reply to Mr Timms is published on the JCHR website, probably towards the end of next week.

I appreciate that many people are disappointed that the Committee has decided not to insist on receiving a memorandum from HMRC at this stage. In my experience, however, this course of action would not have yielded results. Nor can it be guaranteed that, if such a memorandum were received, the Committee would quickly conclude that the Government is wrong and section 58 is incompatible with the Human Rights Act.

I am grateful for the interest which has been shown in the Committee's work. Without the information provided by [DR] and others, we would not have been aware of this issue and would not have raised it with HMRC. The Committee will look closely at the outcome of the judicial review proceedings before considering whether and how to take matters further.

[seadog]

Do you feel they should have pushed Timms further for a proper response?

Feel free to make your views known to them.

Their email address is on this page:
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamenta...ct_details.cfm

Please keep it civil because we don't want to alienate them when they have been sympathetic/supportive up to now.

My civil but forceful email has been sent to the JCHR

[ContractIn]

Some people have contacted me worried that the JCHR decision not to follow up the letter from Timms is a major setback.

Yes it's disappointing that they've apparently let the bugger off the hook, but let's be clear they don't agree with what he said. Not at all in fact. They feel that the JR should have been no excuse for the Treasury not to provide the memo they asked for. It's just that they are pragmatic and realise that the Treasury will never accede to their request, no matter how many times they ask.

They will still go ahead and report their findings but just on the basis of what they already know. They gave Timms & Co an opportunity to put the Treasury and HMRC's counter-arguments but they chose to say nothing. Therefore, the JCHR can only report it the way they find it. End of story.

By the way, I can't speak for anyone else but personally I am more confident than ever that we will win the JR.
And incidentally, Brillo didn't mention that the following quote came from someone else altogether...

"The response from Timms is typical of the evasive attitude of HMRC to this whole issue. All that HMRC are doing is running/hiding away.

However they cant run or hide in court....."

I ditto this. Originally very disappointed with the JCHR news, but received a response from Mr M Egan which I am greatful for as I am sure those of you who also wrote received. I think it shows HMRC are up the smelly creek without a paddle.

[smalldog]

yep, I agree. Whatever Timms puts up as an argument there is no escaping that HMRC should not have allowed crippling debt to mount for so long and should have taken action sooner. There reluctance to act sooner smacks of an intention to amost purposely accrue additional interest to bolster their income should they win.

We operated within the rules at the time, submitted tax returns on time with full declaration of income and continued to live our lives on the basis that HMRC did not reject our claims. We are being treated as if we fraudulently withheld information and/or did not declare monies. We followed protocol as set out by their own procedures..

To come back 2,3 and 7 years later with punitive interest is totally unacceptable. There is no excuse and the JR Im sure will come to the same conclusion.

[Richard Splash]

[QUOTE=DonkeyRhubarb;979098]Some people have contacted me worried that the JCHR decision not to follow up the letter from Timms is a major setback.

I agree with DR - not a major setback but part of the process - For a toothless dog to go an bite someone will only leave the dog looking silly and inafectual. However, if that dog were to cock its leg and p*ss on the person at a later stage I'm sure that would carry far greater effect.

Lets not lose heart people on what was a predictable outcome at this juncture. Don't let the buggers grind you down.
I recieved another letter today again telling me I should pay on account before I receive the bill.... Oh and current interst rate is 2.5%

I too had a reply from JCHR this morning, a well crafted and carefully worded response I thought which was on similar lines to that published thismorning at 10:36.

Carry on the good work DR

[Richard Splash]

yep, I agree. Whatever Timms puts up as an argument there is no escaping that HMRC should not have allowed crippling debt to mount for so long and should have taken action sooner. There reluctance to act sooner smacks of an intention to amost purposely accrue additional interest to bolster their income should they win.

We operated within the rules at the time, submitted tax returns on time with full declaration of income and continued to live our lives on the basis that HMRC did not reject our claims. We are being treated as if we fraudulently withheld information and/or did not declare monies. We followed protocol as set out by their own procedures..

To come back 2,3 and 7 years later with punitive interest is totally unacceptable. There is no excuse and the JR Im sure will come to the same conclusion.

You'd be forgiven for thinking that this was some sort of mad cap plan conjured up by Brown when he was chancellor. 'And when I'm PM and the economy is down the toilet' he thought, 'I'll have some rainy day money to fall back on and then I'll look great instead the calculated inter meddling schemer.

[Alba]

Set up on your own to beat 50% tax rate

Will this be seen as "tax avodance or tax evasion"

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/mon...cle6878923.ece

Is this not just working within the current laws and legislation, or will we see "retrospective changes" to this now?

[seadog]

Posted on Frank Field's blog

I posted this on Franks blog

He seems innocently unaware of his own parties legislation.



Dear Mr Field

Your say charges arising from closing of tax loopholes are never retrospectivly imposed. I think you will find you are mistaken, and I refer you to Section 58 of the Finance Act 2008 passed by this parliament in which they DID implement retrospctive legislation.

It was done in a most underhand and deceitful way and your colleague Jane Kennedy misled the House when she claimed it was in accordance with the Rees rules as being "fair proportionate and in the public interest". It is now the subject of severe criticsm from the JCHR and also subject to legal challange from a Judicial Review in the UK and also in the European Court of Human Rights.

I listen to the furore MP's are making about a few thousand pounds they might have to pay back. I am faced with a claim circa £175,000. I believe your Labour colleagues would not have passed this legislation had they know the full facts and consequences of their actions but the parliamentry process kept this well hiddeen from them and they voted to order when pressed by the whips.

Is it too late to get this reopened?