BN66 - JR Judgement Day

[poppy01]

Not in England and Wales and never has been : hence the term "Her Majesty's Courts". The Courts have never had the power to intervene in the primamry legislation of parliament and still don't. Since 1999 they have had the power to find law "incompatible" with the ECHR, but such a finding has no binding effect on the government.

So when you are next reflecting on what a great, noble and time-honoured country you are living in, with its quirky unwritten constitution, remember that the building blocks of the legal system is still a largely medieval shambling mess.

You describe a very frightening scenario. That a government can pass any law it chooses as long as it has enough 'bums on seats' and is prepared to lie to parliament.

You are obviously well versed in the law (Alan?)

I still believe this is uncharted legal water, correct me if I'm wrong.
What happens if a retrospectiove law is repealed by an incoming government.
I'm assuming what I did in 2003 suddenly becomes 'lawful' again. My actions have effectively 'flipped' from lawful to unlawful and back. Actually on second thoughts, thats not true is it, my actions have actually flipped between 'always' being unlawful and 'always' being lawful. s58 2008 never happened It really does defy all common sense doesnt it.

People might be financially ruined when they acted wholly within the law. If this had happened to a large number of people there would be revolution in the air. What does it take to tip people over the edge?

[SantaClaus]

The simple answer is, as long as parliament backs it, it will be ok. HMRC can introduce and pass no laws by itself. A basic but important point ! HMRC is only as legally important as you or me (well.. bit of a simplification..) but if either you, me or HMRC get parliament to pass a bill, we are bordering on the indefeasible.

..well, as long the law doesn't violate the EU treaty that is - which has nothing to do with the ECHR.

Yep, but parliament was misled. Stephen Timms lied that it was a "clarification" to get the bill passed.

He deceived parliament and the Queen.

[portseven]

The simple answer is, as long as parliament backs it, it will be ok. HMRC can introduce and pass no laws by itself. A basic but important point ! HMRC is only as legally important as you or me (well.. bit of a simplification..) but if either you, me or HMRC get parliament to pass a bill, we are bordering on the indefeasible.

..well, as long the law doesn't violate the EU treaty that is - which has nothing to do with the ECHR.

So whats your point? Are we all ****ed?

What do you think we should do?

[Alba]

Let me turn all of this on its head.

Suppose this judgment were allowed to stand ie. any appeals failed to achieve a declaration of incompatibility.

Where would this leave the UK Tax system?

HMRC have already stated that they intend to target other arrangements retrospectively. If fact, wouldn't there be an onus on them to do so from the point of view of consistency, otherwise s58 would be seen to be wholly arbitrary?

Here is a long short, given that Scots Law is based on Roman law, and if everyone was to vote SNP in the forthcoming election;

"Where would this leave the UK Tax System?"

[northernSoul]

Yep, but parliament was misled. Stephen Timms lied that it was a "clarification" to get the bill passed.

He deceived parliament and the Queen.

If you are suggesting that a law become invalid because an MP lied about it, we'd have none left ..

[Europa]

Hi,

This is my first post, so hi to everyone on the Forum!

Apologies if this has been asked before, there are a few posts on this subject and I haven't read them all...

I joined one of these schemes quite a few years ago, then transferred to another IOM company running effectively the same scheme.

So, assuming that the worst happens and all other cases (KPMG etc.) and appeals are lost and we all then have to pay HMRC tens of thousands of pounds (and I'm in the 'lost house' category), can I not take any action against the companies who ran these schemes?

I have read through all the literature, web sites, emails etc. that I was given when I first joined these schemes and all of them state that the scheme is legal and that I will be able to retain approx 83% of my income.

If it is proven that these schemes were NOT legal could I then take action against these companies to recover not only the fees that I have paid year after year (for a product that didn't do what they said it would) as well as the outstanding taxation that I now have to pay?

Thanks in advance for any responses.

Again, sorry if this isn't something that anyone has any knowledge on, just seems to me that if it all goes belly-up I (we) would have been sold a product that has not provided any of the results as stated in the literature etc. and has left me (us) in a worse position than if I (we) had done nothing (as I will owe 5 yrs taxation as well as having paid 5yrs fees).

Thanks again for any help/responses.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

HMRC can introduce and pass no laws by itself.

No, but it's clear the Government pretty much rubber stamps most of what HMRC ask for. In the case of s58, the Government even connived with HMRC to mislead Parliament.

Below is an email I received from the then Financial Secretary Jane Kennedy after she left office. I am sure she is being economical with the truth and knew full well what she was putting before Parliament.

(The attachment refers to the Survey presented to the JCHR.)

Dear Mr Jagger,

Thank you for your message and I do apologise for the very late reply. I have recieved an unusually large number of letters etc. I remember the debate and was content that, having questioned officials closely on the impact of this proposal, very few would be affected, certainly not in the way that your attachment is suggesting. I would strongly advise those who are affected to write, giving their name and address, to their MPs or, if they are Isle of Man residents, write directly to Stephen Timms MP, at the Treasury. They will only get a reply from the Minister if they write via an MP.

Each case should be looked at again by HMRC to check that the outcome is in line with the policy intention.

Yours sincerely,

Jane Kennedy MP

[northernSoul]

So whats your point? Are we all ****ed?

What do you think we should do?

I've no idea.

Whether you are all **ed or not only time and the appeals process will decide ...

You could pay/not pay and wait for an appeal/get legal advice/not get legal advice ... who knows.

Looking independently the best thing would be to get legal advice for your situation - your rights against HMRC (not just re: Huitson but e,g enforcement & bankruptcy), possible action against MTM, what you can and can't do with your property with insolvency pending etc.

[SantaClaus]

If you are suggesting that a law become invalid because an MP lied about it, we'd have none left ..

So our legal system is based on lies? Now why dont I believe that

Are you a troll, by any chance? You havent made one positive or useful post.
Why would you spend so much time on here if youre not directly affected?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

northernSoul?

I'm all for giving people the benefit of the doubt but:

• Joined 20th Jan 2010
• 17 posts since
• Claims to be just an "IT bod" with a law degree
• Mentioned suing Montpelier numerous times

More than just a casual observer?