BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[PlaneSailing]

Do you know what is really shocking in all of this?

That we are prepared to bung an official?

No!

It is the fact that we are all in no doubt that HMRC are holding information which would prejudice their case.

In criminal proceedings this would be deemed withholding evidence, which is against the law.

So tell me, where is the line we shouldn't cross?

There is no doubt they are holding information that is in the public interest. They've admitted
it. They are keeping the information back because it's 'too expensive' to retrieve.

However, it would seem that the Treasury (or HMRC) think it's good value to push on with a legal
case that stands very little chance, win or lose, of retrieving the amounts of money that
were originally mentioned.

As has been said before, the only people who will get rich from this are the lawyers.

Any information that could help to shortcut this process, would not only
help a couple of thousand people who have had an immoral legal change forced upon
them, but would save the public purse quite a bit in legal costs.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

If one of Hector's drones demonstrates some moral fibre and makes contact how do we react quickly to the opportunity?

I'm not really expecting anyone to come forward but, if they did, I can rustle up a sizeable down payment to demonstate that we're serious.

There is the question of whether we could actually trust anyone who approached us but we can cross that bridge when we come to it.

[email protected]

[DonkeyRhubarb]

There is no doubt they are holding information that is in the public interest. They've admitted
it. They are keeping the information back because it's 'too expensive' to retrieve.

Actually here they say that some of the information would "prejudice the assessment or collection of tax".

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...0%20Jagger.pdf

Incidentally, for the record, the gentleman with the initials SD named in this request gave evidence to the JR.

In his testimony he stated that he was the Assistant Director of HMRC responsible for what became Section 58.

Clearly someone to add to your Xmas card list.

[Vallah]

Remind me to never, ever get on the wrong side of DR!

[Leyther70]

Im in!

as long as they declare it on their SA return!

[RockTheBoat]

dont care, my ENTIRE LIFE UNTIL I RETIRE IS BASED ON THE LYING CHEATING ACTIONS OF THESE PEOPLE!!!

Deckster, for me this is no game, this is MY LIFE we are dealing with here and I dont take that lightly no matter what the cost

Yep agreed

count me in as well

[Emigre]

Im in!

as long as they declare it on their SA return!

Just counting up the penny bottle now.

So would it be tax deductible for us?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Remind me to never, ever get on the wrong side of DR!

Don't know what you mean.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Someone has just contacted me raising the concern that HMRC could use some of the recent posts in court like they did at the JR.

This is a fair point which I thought I'd respond to here.

HMRC will deny that they are withholding any information which would have a significant bearing on the case. Therefore, any attempt by us to obtain useful information should be a fruitless exercise, so why bother bringing it up if they have nothing to hide?

The last thing HMRC would want to do in court is draw attention to the possibility that such evidence does exist.

In any case, I'm only asking for information about possible corruption/conspiracy/cover-up. No-one could argue that exposing this would not be in the public interest.

[PlaneSailing]

Actually here they say that some of the information would "prejudice the assessment or collection of tax".

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...0%20Jagger.pdf

Incidentally, for the record, the gentleman with the initials SD named in this request gave evidence to the JR.

In his testimony he stated that he was the Assistant Director of HMRC responsible for what became Section 58.

Clearly someone to add to your Xmas card list.

I don't know what this means: "prejudice the assessment or collection of tax". Does this mean that if they
let the information out, we'd all then know a legal route to avoid tax?

If so, it's bit late for that as they've already enatced a retrospective change to the law.