Originally posted by rosebud
View Post
This is what we are appealing in a couple of weeks time.
-
Not at all. These documents relate to the High Court hearing in January.
This is what we are appealing in a couple of weeks time. -
Copy it to a memory stick, put it in a sugar cube and get the donkey to swallow it.Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View Post
Then make sure he only drinks water for 2 weeks until the case is over
'Orwell's 1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual'. -
Nick Pickles, director of Big Brother Watch.Comment
-
Davis must be sailing pretty close to perjury here.Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View Post
I don't believe for one minute that he actually believes what he's written.
The truth my arse.Comment
-
Even the last line "I believe the facts stated in this witness statement are true" is ambiguous.Originally posted by Donnie Darko View Post
Do you only "believe" it Davis, or are you abso-bl**dy-lutely sure?
Looking forward to a ringside seat at the kangaroo court of appeal in November.'Orwell's 1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual'. -
Nick Pickles, director of Big Brother Watch.Comment
-
-
No one could have put the right amount of money aside because they only sought NI after s.58 - prior to that they were not looking for NI at all.Originally posted by javadude View PostThere's an elephant wondering around here...Comment
-
Institutional Dishonesty
Many scheme users received an entrapment letter from Alan Brannigan of HMRC in May 2007 asking if they would accept the outcome of four test cases at the commissioners. This was an offer which most individuals accepted.
No one realise that they had become the victim of an HMRC deception or perhaps entrapment until the Budget 2008 announcement that the law would be changed retrospectively.
Simon Davis, of HMRC, confirmed in his written witness statement to the court (dated 14 December 2009) that HMRC FIRST came to the view that the scheme did not work in the autumn of 2007. Note this was after the entrapment letter. HMRC could not have taken test cases to the commissioners if they believed that the scheme worked. Mr Davis has in effect confirmed that the letter in May 2007 was actively intended to prevent scheme users demanding closure of the enquiries.
The 2007 entrapment letter was not mentioned in the Finance Bill 2008 Parliamentary debate and as such Parliament was misled into passing section 58 retrospectively.
Note that HMRC believed that the scheme worked until at least autumn 2007 – so anyone who was bullied into paying over money prior to that has been swindled - whether that was an individual agreement or a group settlement such as the Suo Motu stitch up.There's an elephant wondering around here...Comment
-
Dcouments
When you read these it would seem we have no case to answer, and we must all be very stupid to have carried on using the scheme for so long! All these warnings, letters and even a newsletter. not sure what happened to all mine, I joined in 2001 and I think I got 1 letter around 2003 which said something like "we do not think this scheme works", then nothing until around 2008. can these statements (or witnesses) be cross examined in court, and discredited?Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View PostComment
-
Don't worry they'll get their comeuppance one day.Comment
-
Sobering reading, it all comes across like we simply stuck our heads in the sand and denied all. But what all this has attempted to wash over is of course that they never told us why we should pay them. They can say the scheme doesn't work, I can say the moon is made of cheese. Doesn't mean a thing, not without being tested. And we were ALWAYS prepared to go to court, ALWAYS, and we knew that they could close the scheme down, because we believed we were right. But prior to Padmore raising it's head, the only 'proof' they ever offered was Archer Shee V Baker - and that was so discredited they never mentioned it again. And all the time we were prepared to go to court / commissioners, and they did NOTHING.Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View Post
We NEVER attempted to avoid the legal argument, I personally would have loved for it to have gone to the commissioners 6 or 7 years ago. If we'd won, HMRC could have closed the loop, and had all that money in the coffers right now. If we'd lost, well, hard as it might have been, we would have paid up, and many bankruptcies and broken families avoided. But they did NOTHING. What have they saved in timescales? I don't understand how that can hold any water whatsoever. Reading those papers, they have made it seem to clear-cut that you have to wonder why they even needed retrospective legislation at all. They sat, and watched it grow, they as much as Montpelier, are responsible for the schemes growth. Their very inaction was a clear indicator to many that they were unable to challenge it, THAT INDEED IT WAS LEGAL. Their failure to close the scheme down, despite having years and years to do so, without the controversy, the damage to the image of the UK tax system, and without the damage this will have caused to ordinary people, wives, husbands and children is either monumental incompetence or arrogance of the very highest order. What was to stop them changing the law to close the scheme then going to the commissioners to fight for the tax they were claiming? Nothing, not a single thing.
Of course they'll say they never accepted it worked, though their technical bulletin comes pretty close. Why would they? What HMRC goon would openly come out and say that it did? That's not our argument. Our argument is quite simple, and even after reading those papers, even after all the times they were asked, they were never able to clearly say WHY IT DID NOT WORK.
Read that out in court, you gits.Last edited by OnYourBikeGB; 18 October 2010, 21:02.Comment
Comment