BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[ContractIn]

That most of the 2,500 will not even be aware of this forum let alone the cleggy site and without a complete list of those affected it will never swell to those numbers.

Over the last couple of years, through various contracts, I have met many people who were users of this scheme. I always ask whether they are on this forum. Not one has said to me they post (maybe they do) and only occasionally read the forum. When a new initiative is underway i.e. write to MP I have sent them the link asking them to do so.

It is frustrating that so many are impacted but we only see a small percentage of people supporting initiatives. However people do have mixed views. Some believe this should be left to Montp and do not consider that any other pursuit is worthwhile, win or lose. Others believe it is a foregone conclusion that we will never win, they don’t have the money to pay and never will have so have buried their heads as if this doesn’t exist. A few have it covered by a CTD and have moved on. The rest believe the courts will ultimately overturn this legislation.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Well I'm one of them. They NEVER enquired about my 2002/03 Tax return, yet I still have a Closure Notice for it.

Surely you weren't expecting HMRC to abide by their own rules?

It's funny how they acuse us of flouting the rules when they pay lip service to them all the time.

The one thing I've learned from this whole sorry saga is that HMRC will stoop to just about anything to get their own way. As far as they're concerned, the "ends" always justify the "means", no matter how underhand the "means" are.

[screwthis]

I know lots of people who didn't get their returns challenged within the 1-year window but HMRC simply swept this aside using "discovery". In some instances, people have even received Closure Notices for returns where enquiries had never been opened!

HMRC's "rules" are obviously not worth the paper they're written on.

WOW! Staggering!

MontP should be all over that then?? The law is they can't challenge it. Even if the retrospection stands it just means you were doing something 'illegal' but they didn't spot it within the year so it's yours. Whatever happens with the court case that should be a point you can argue.
Sadly not for me as they did challenge mine.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

WOW! Staggering!

MontP should be all over that then?? The law is they can't challenge it. Even if the retrospection stands it just means you were doing something 'illegal' but they didn't spot it within the year so it's yours. Whatever happens with the court case that should be a point you can argue.
Sadly not for me as they did challenge mine.

The problem is that HMRC have used "discovery assessments" to get around this. They claim that there wasn't enough detail on the tax returns for them to detect every single claim within the time limit.

Clearly they've pulled a fast one and Montp have already said they would challenge this if the legal action is unsuccessful.

[loser]

The problem is that HMRC have used "discovery assessments" to get around this. They claim that there wasn't enough detail on the tax returns for them to detect every single claim within the time limit.

Clearly they've pulled a fast one and Montp have already said they would challenge this if the legal action is unsuccessful.

I don't understand why they need to wait to see the outcome of the legal process - wouldn't it make sense to dispute HMRC's approach right now in parallel with the (probably very, very lengthy) legal process?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I don't understand why they need to wait to see the outcome of the legal process - wouldn't it make sense to dispute HMRC's approach right now in parallel with the (probably very, very lengthy) legal process?

I don't know if they have to wait but it would be a distraction from the main goal of getting s.58 struck off.

I may be wrong about this but I assume they would have to get someone, as a test case, to withdraw their existing appeal on HR grounds and resubmit on the basis that HMRC didn't challenge within the time limits. This in itself could turn out to be a protracted legal tussle, since HMRC will come up with all sorts of weasely justifications as to why they were entitled to issue discovery assessments.

I certainly wouldn't assume this was an open and shut case, since nothing ever is straightforward when you're dealing with HMRC.

I can understand why Montpelier don't want to open this potential can of worms until they absolutely have to.

[SLB]

Finally a response

Finally had a response from Ed Davey, which included a letter from David Gauke. . .there was the usual cr.p in there that I expected from Gauke the worm-turner. Waffled on about voting against it in Oppostion but won't take action as it is subject to judicial review by the courts. Such a sh.t excuse

He could have saved a lot of ink if he'd just replied:
Dear slb,
****.OFF.
DG

Would have portrayed how much he really intends to do about it just as accurately.

[helen7]

If anybody has an influential MP, why not organise a meeting or attend one of their 'clinics'. It should give the opportunity to get a proper response from them and maybe convince them to help us.

Maybe we could prepare a briefing pack for points to bring up and evidence of 'wrong doing'.

It seems quite obvious that our letters are not getting past the office clerk.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

If anybody has an influential MP, why not organise a meeting or attend one of their 'clinics'. It should give the opportunity to get a proper response from them and maybe convince them to help us.

Maybe we could prepare a briefing pack for points to bring up and evidence of 'wrong doing'.

It seems quite obvious that our letters are not getting past the office clerk.

David Gauke is the man.

If he was my MP I'd be beating a path to his surgery. And forget the briefing pack, since you'll only get 20 minutes if you're lucky. There is only one line of questioning:

Why won't you do anything about Section 58 when you spoke out so forcibly against it in opposition? You said it was unacceptable at the time so how can you stand by and do nothing now?

Unfortunately, my MP is a newly elected backbencher with little experience and no influence.

[screwthis]

So Mr. Gauke what's the deal with BN66?
http://www.davidgauke.com/files/imag...efence_450.jpg

No, seriously what's the deal?
http://www.davidgauke.com/files/imag...olice2_450.jpg

Answer the f**king question
http://www.davidgauke.com/files/imag...olice1_450.jpg