BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[TAF4]

I think the problem for HMRC may come when Ministers open the Treasury files on s.58 and see the advice HMRC gave to the Labour government and the various legal opinions they obtained on the scheme. These documents may not support the "clarification" argument.

Nice

That will give the lurkers something to think about.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Nice

That will give the lurkers something to think about.

For information, although HM Treasury were unwilling to release the documents themselves under FOI, they did provide the list below. I have since been informed by HMT that the 5 legal opinions (15, 16, 17, 18 & 20) came from HMRC.

1. Advice to Ministers
2. Table of costings
3. Emails to officials
4. Emails to officials
5. Readout from meeting
6. Emails to officials
7. Emails to officials
8. Advice to Ministers
9. Correspondence between Ministers
10. Email to officials
11. Emails to officials
12. Advice to Ministers
13. Brief
14. Handling advice
15. Legal advice
16. Legal advice
17. Legal advice
18. Legal advice
19. Budget Note 66
20. Legal advice
21. Extract from Inland Revenue manual

I currently have a complaint being investigated by the Information Commissioner's Office into HMT's refusal to release these documents.

[TAF4]

For information, although HM Treasury were unwilling to release the documents themselves under FOI, they did provide the list below. I have since been informed by HMT that the 5 legal opinions (15, 16, 17, 18 & 20) came from HMRC.

Do I detect some 'tension' between HMT and HMRC regarding who will get to carry the can for misleading Parliament?

I do hope so.

[OnYourBikeGB]

For information, although HM Treasury were unwilling to release the documents themselves under FOI, they did provide the list below. I have since been informed by HMT that the 5 legal opinions (15, 16, 17, 18 & 20) came from HMRC.



I currently have a complaint being investigated by the Information Commissioner's Office into HMT's refusal to release these documents.

This is all starting to sound like a moment of reckoning is coming for some bods in the HMRC/Treasury. Just when the Government is looking to cut a few jobs too. Are the tables turning? I hope so. Excellent work as always DR.

[PurpleTurtle]

Letter sent to Rob Wilson (Con MP Reading East).

He'll be getting one from me tomorrow too.

Incidentally I met him on the Friday after election night in one of Reading's finer downmarket nightclubs where he was concluding a celebratory re-election pub crawl. Tory MP in 'down with the kids' shocker!

I had a brief chat, but felt it was a bit off to say "Now, I have this 'ere tax issue I need some help with..." considering I was somewhat 'refreshed' myself!

[smalldog]

Do I detect some 'tension' between HMT and HMRC regarding who will get to carry the can for misleading Parliament?

I do hope so.

and guess who would win, HMT being the new government effectively, would hang HMRC out to dry in an instant Im sure, as they were effectively in bed with the enemy (Labour). Be another notch in the bed post for the tories against labour, I can just see the headlines:

Tories uncover Labour and HMRC coverup and parliamentary deception scandal

sit quite nicely alongside the whole Labours been P*ssing money up the wall story...

[RingStinger]

He'll be getting one from me tomorrow too.

Incidentally I met him on the Friday after election night in one of Reading's finer downmarket nightclubs where he was concluding a celebratory re-election pub crawl. Tory MP in 'down with the kids' shocker!

I had a brief chat, but felt it was a bit off to say "Now, I have this 'ere tax issue I need some help with..." considering I was somewhat 'refreshed' myself!

You're not named after this '....Reading's finer downmarket nightclub..' are you? Spent a few nights in there myself ...

[WavesAtPlay]

One more letter

We have just passed the 200-letter mark and I'm still getting requests.

Although it's very early days yet we've already had one very positive response from a Government Minister. I don't want to say any more than this at the moment partly because our "friends" might be reading this but also because I don't want to jinx it.

I posted my letter today to Mike Penning (Conservative - Hemel) who was quite supportive about it last year .

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Do I detect some 'tension' between HMT and HMRC regarding who will get to carry the can for misleading Parliament?

I do hope so.

If you scan through that list of documents, it's pretty small, especially when you compare it with the "many hundreds" that HMRC hold on BN66.

I think it's safe to assume that HMRC only gave HMT half the story (if that). Treasury officials briefing Jane Kennedy will have "condensed" it even further, and then she was probably a bit economical with the facts in the debate. The net result is Parliament was given a highly selective version of events.

Whilst Treasury officials and the Government share some of the responsibility, I think we all know who the real instigators were behind this. When push comes to shove, can you see officials in the Treasury taking the blame? I don't think so!

By the way, you may recall that Jane Kennedy has already distanced herself from it. (This quote was from an email from her, dated 22nd July 2009.)

"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.

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

* the attachment she refers to was the survey presented to the JCHR

[Richard Splash]

I'm sure HMRC must have realised that s.58 was at risk if there was a change of Government.

And there is an easy way for the Government to sell this without appearing to side with tax dodgers. By repealing s.58, all they would be doing is restoring the law to what it was prior to 2008.

HMRC could still take us through the tax tribunal route. If s.58 was merely a clarification of the law, and the scheme never worked, then it shouldn't make any difference to the final outcome.

I think the problem for HMRC may come when Ministers open the Treasury files on s.58 and see the advice HMRC gave to the Labour government and the various legal opinions they obtained on the scheme. These documents may not support the "clarification" argument.

Nice angle DR, I do hope this option has been clearly pointed out to our newly elected government bods...