BN66 - JR Judgement Day

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Technical Exchange 63

This has been released under FOI.

Note the date of publication - 31 July 2002

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...Issue%2063.pdf

I think HMRC have been engaged in a bit of TD of their own, namely Truth Dodging.

[moro]

I'm mainly a lurker not a poster - but reading this forum has kept me sane these last few months.

After careful consideration (and a little alcohol) I'm not as worried as I was a few hours ago.

I can't pay this unfair tax, and I want to to fight to the very end.

So I'm not considering approaching HMRC or litigating against MTM - even though they could have been more communicative during this period of uncertainty.

We now need to regroup and remain positive about the outcome...and thank the main contributors to this forum who have done a superb job of keeping us all informed of the processes to date.

[PlaneSailing]

Standard

BBC story...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8484955.stm
"A website forum for users of the Montpelier scheme contains claims from one person who says she now faces paying £300,000 in back taxes"

Probably from here.. http://forums.contractoruk.com/1058332-post195.html

Hello BBC Journo, how about a little balance here plse

The Standard is a little more in our favour

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...hore-havens.do

[rosbiff]

The Standard is a little more in our favour

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...hore-havens.do

Yes, that one doesn't tar us with same brush as Fred Goodwin

[PlaneSailing]

This has been released under FOI.

Note the date of publication - 31 July 2002

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...Issue%2063.pdf

I think HMRC have been engaged in a bit of TD of their own, namely Truth Dodging.

Words fail me.

[robinhood]

Yes, that one doesn't tar us with same brush as Fred Goodwin

I like this bit
"The retrospective clawback was unprecedented in the history of tax legislation."

If that doesn't deserve an appeal I don't know what does "

[nuffsaid]

BBC story...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8484955.stm
"A website forum for users of the Montpelier scheme contains claims from one person who says she now faces paying £300,000 in back taxes"

Probably from here.. http://forums.contractoruk.com/1058332-post195.html

Hello BBC Journo, how about a little balance here plse

To the BBC Journo, please be more accurate with your facts...

Of the 92 who responded:

* 57 (62%) said they could not meet the tax demand, even if they sold all of their assets including their family home.
* 29 (31%) could only settle by selling or, where possible, remortgaging their home
* 6 (7%) could cover the liability from savings/investments or by delaying retirement

[chef]

If it helps in the slightest, over 1000 people have logged onto this forum today setting a new record but also showing just how many people out there are either affected or interested in this case..

[WhatEver]

So what does happen if the CoA doesn't accept the case?

The Judgement[*]Once accepted the Court of Appeal Hearing could be as soon as November 2010. The CoA would need to appoint 3 senior and experienced Lord Justices for the Hearing which takes longer to organise.

So what does happen if the CoA doesn't accept the case?

[BolshieBastard]

Let me first say I feel gutted. But I also have to say I saw this coming. it had IR35 judgement written all over it when many were saying the judge looked in our favour then delivers this verdict.

I havent read the judgement, I just need to figure out now how to find the cash and get this monkey off my back. To many the fight goes on but to me, its just dragging it out further. Each to their own.

Let me tell you why we wont win this, pure and simple, Government interference.

I know someone very closely who used to work in the civil service on benefits administration as an adjudication officer during the miners strike. Adj O's were supposedly independent authorities in their own right who gave decisions on benefit entitlement.

During the miners strike the thatcher Government put pressure on Adj O's not to award ANY benefit claims in favour of the miners. The person I knew considered that information and all the evidence submitted with the benefit claim. They decided to ignore the fact the claimant was a miner and considered the claim for benefit was from a worker not connected with mining.

All normal entitlement was considered to be satisfied so they determined the claim was successful in the claimant's favour adding their reasoned argument to support this.

However, the senior local adjudicator did a check on the case and being unable to fault how the decision was reached, referred it to the Office of the Adjudication Officer which was based in Southampton at that time for a decision.

The OAO returned the claim with an instruction that it should be failed since the claimant was a miner and the Government had decreed no claim from a miner for benefit should be successful effective during the miner's strike.

The OAO also directed the case be returned back to them with confirmation that the local adjudication officer had implemented their 'advice.' The local Adj O was also warned that even though they were seen as independent and unfettered in their benefit decision making, that as such the Adj O was personally responsible for making any alternative decision ie to award benefit and, they would suffer the consequences if they decided differently to what the OAO had 'advised.'

The person I know could not bring themselves to act on the clearly illegal and unambiguous pressure of being forced into giving a decision on a benefit claim they neither supported or agreed with and felt complied to resign.

Good luck to those of you determined to carry the fight on.