BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[BolshieBastard]

Thank you for Toocan, you put that a lot more eloquently than I could.

OK, just read above. Do you have any reference material/sources that back up this statement?
As a personal example, my closure notices have figures scribbled in pencil and despite HMRC claiming otherwise, there was one that I didn't receive in the prescribed time limit. Therefore I think I have a right to appeal against them.

As Toocan said, each person's case has elements that make them different. No doubt everyone will have subtleties in their case where HMRC have not followed "procedure". I still think we can block up the courts system.

Right, I'm off to sit in my favourite armchair

I used to be a PO for the Benefits Agency when loads of miners claimed Family Credit and were rejected then appealed during the miners strike. There were a lot more miner's appeals for FC than the 3000 or so tax appeals we have. It didnt take us long to shift all those appeals and I can assure you more than one tribunal was sympathetic to their situation. Not one miner was successful in their appeal and I'll leave it to you to guess why.

In case you are thinking benefit appeals and tax appeals are different, in essence they are not.

Good luck if you think you can block up the system. Having worked in the system, I dont think you will but it may delay the inevitable if come across a sympathetic tribunal \ commissioners who agrees with you.

The appeal process wont be concerned that your CN was in pencil. As far as Im aware, there's nothing to say a notification must be in black ink to make it compliant although it could be argued it wasnt the norm to use pencil.

I suspect the tribunal view on this would be;

could you read it, did it make sense and was it understandable? If the answers are yes, I'd suggest the tribunal \ commissioner's would deem what the CN was written in is irrelevant.

As for saying you never received one CN in the relevant period, as the appellant it is up to you to prove you didnt get it in time. All HMRC are required to show is that a notification was created and delivered to their agent ie the post office or courier, for posting to your last notified address.

The point Im making here is that if HMRC get 3 judgements against us, they wont have to prove much.

If you are going to follow that line in any subsequent appeal, may I respectfully point out you need to have firm evidence that you couldnt understand the CN, you can prove non \ late delivery and not just go to an appeal and say it wasnt received in time etc.

[OnYourBikeGB]

Emigre, I couldnt agree more.....!!

If we do win then I think we should all pop down to Miss Miggins pie shop for a slap up lunch

**** that! I'm getting pissed!

[Toocan]

As for saying you never received one CN in the relevant period, as the appellant it is up to you to prove you didnt get it in time. All HMRC are required to show is that a notification was created and delivered to their agent ie the post office or courier, for posting to your last notified address.

The point Im making here is that if HMRC get 3 judgements against us, they wont have to prove much.

If you are going to follow that line in any subsequent appeal, may I respectfully point out you need to have firm evidence that you couldnt understand the CN, you can prove non \ late delivery and not just go to an appeal and say it wasnt received in time etc.

Oh dear....

The enquiry notices that were not issued in time were dated by HMRC after the last date that HMRC were permitted to issue them. Some people have CN's for tax years that were never brought under enquiry. The fact is that HMRC did not follow their own procedure and so even if we ultimately lose, many scheme users will not have to pay any extra tax or interest on their first year. (NB many, but not all)

On these years, HMRC were 'out of time'.

You appear to be assuming that people are trying to pull the wool over HMRCs eyes - but that's not the case.

For some reason you are picking out and amplifing the possible negatives and even bringing in other failed situations. How about taking a more balanced view?

If we win at the CoA then we'll probably have to take action to encourage HMRC to accept that verdict.
If we lose at the CoA then we will have to consider what the next step is. Whether there is any more to be done on the JR route will depend on what the judges find. It's not certain because it is not an area of law that has been tested before.

You have said that you believe that a 'fail' at the CoA will lead to a swift winding up of the situation. Have you investigated that? I have - and from my untrained eye there appears to be other questions that come into play. Parker's judgement suggested some of those. Are they any good? I don't know.

Remember, this scheme was disclosed - no one was on the fiddle. It is HMRC who did not do their job and it is HMRC who misled Parliament in order to get a retrospective law on the statue book. The recent FoI disclosure on the 1987 'Padmore' legislation further underlined this.

[BolshieBastard]

Oh dear....

The enquiry notices that were not issued in time were dated by HMRC after the last date that HMRC were permitted to issue them. Some people have CN's for tax years that were never brought under enquiry. The fact is that HMRC did not follow their own procedure and so even if we ultimately lose, many scheme users will not have to pay any extra tax or interest on their first year. (NB many, but not all)

On these years, HMRC were 'out of time'.

You appear to be assuming that people are trying to pull the wool over HMRCs eyes - but that's not the case.

For some reason you are picking out and amplifing the possible negatives and even bringing in other failed situations. How about taking a more balanced view?

If we win at the CoA then we'll probably have to take action to encourage HMRC to accept that verdict.
If we lose at the CoA then we will have to consider what the next step is. Whether there is any more to be done on the JR route will depend on what the judges find. It's not certain because it is not an area of law that has been tested before.

You have said that you believe that a 'fail' at the CoA will lead to a swift winding up of the situation. Have you investigated that? I have - and from my untrained eye there appears to be other questions that come into play. Parker's judgement suggested some of those. Are they any good? I don't know.

Remember, this scheme was disclosed - no one was on the fiddle. It is HMRC who did not do their job and it is HMRC who misled Parliament in order to get a retrospective law on the statue book. The recent FoI disclosure on the 1987 'Padmore' legislation further underlined this.

Im doing nothing of the sort.

Look, forget about the scheme worked and wasnt a fiddle. We all believe that. We are not dealing with that issue. We are talking about how HMRC will deal with the appeals post final judgement.

You can chuck Parker's deliberation and Padmore in all you want but when it comes to it, the tribunal \ commissioners will look at the judgements handed down by the 3 courts regarding BN66.

As for taking a balance view, come on. Im all for that.

[OnYourBikeGB]

Oh dear....

The enquiry notices that were not issued in time were dated by HMRC after the last date that HMRC were permitted to issue them. Some people have CN's for tax years that were never brought under enquiry. The fact is that HMRC did not follow their own procedure and so even if we ultimately lose, many scheme users will not have to pay any extra tax or interest on their first year. (NB many, but not all)

On these years, HMRC were 'out of time'.

You appear to be assuming that people are trying to pull the wool over HMRCs eyes - but that's not the case.

For some reason you are picking out and amplifing the possible negatives and even bringing in other failed situations. How about taking a more balanced view?

If we win at the CoA then we'll probably have to take action to encourage HMRC to accept that verdict.
If we lose at the CoA then we will have to consider what the next step is. Whether there is any more to be done on the JR route will depend on what the judges find. It's not certain because it is not an area of law that has been tested before.

You have said that you believe that a 'fail' at the CoA will lead to a swift winding up of the situation. Have you investigated that? I have - and from my untrained eye there appears to be other questions that come into play. Parker's judgement suggested some of those. Are they any good? I don't know.

Remember, this scheme was disclosed - no one was on the fiddle. It is HMRC who did not do their job and it is HMRC who misled Parliament in order to get a retrospective law on the statue book. The recent FoI disclosure on the 1987 'Padmore' legislation further underlined this.

I'm one of those that had an enquiry opened after the year was up. It's highly contentious, but HMRC do have precedent. They have successfully argued that they are entitled to open enquiries if they were not give enough information. Unfortunately I can't recall the case, perhaps someone else can. Of course we told them, they knew, but they would argue we did not tell them enough. Whether that would hold up or not is of course up for debate, but it is a battle to be had once the bigger issues are out of the way.

I was thinking today about those families that have lived with this for so long. I know someone who has fallen ill, and these demands have I am certain had an effect on their health. Now a family is faced with a robbed future because of the interest debt and HMRCs tactics. Where's the justice there? Where's the morality? Where's the proportionality and the fairness? Innocent people will be affected, children growing up without the safety net that would have been there if only HMRC hadn't sat on their hands. Make no mistake, this needs to be fought. BB makes some valid points, as you do yourself. But I think that one thing that we are all agreed on is that this is wrong, this is injustice. Even (and I do not for a second believe this to be the case) that what we were doing did not work, what right as HMRC or anyone have the right to cover up their incompetence by destroying the lives of others? Waiting 7 years, and being in full possession of the facts is exactly that.

I was talking today to my son, who was asking abut Nazi Germany and the second world war. I told him that's what happens when good people do not stand up to a bad ideology, and people accept injustice because it's inconvenient not to. This isn't Nazi Germany, that would be an obscene comparison, but laws like S58 are indeed the thin edge of wedge.

[centurian]

Whether they will admit it or not, courts/tribunals do tend to lean to a sense of fair play. They'll give you some leeway in these arguments - after all, you are a small individual against the might of the state. But if they think you're pushing it too far, they'll come down hard the other way.

A few years back there was a couple who owed shedloads on cards and loans. When they were taken to court, they looked for any discrepancy in the loan agreements and the judge accepted their argument and the debt was effectively quashed.

They managed to get over half their debts set aside. But as each creditor sued them, they got increasingly "inventive" until one judge decided that they were simply taking the p1ss - not only did he find in the creditors favour, but awarded huge costs to the other side as well. Last time I checked, they now as owe as much as they did in the first place.

The point is that the "system" tends to have a self-correcting mechanism of sorting out blockages and once you trigger this mechanism, even OJ simpson's legal team won't get you a result. By all means try and fight your corner, but if you think you can block the system...

[Squicker]

I was talking today to my son, who was asking abut Nazi Germany and the second world war. I told him that's what happens when good people do not stand up to a bad ideology, and people accept injustice because it's inconvenient not to. This isn't Nazi Germany, that would be an obscene comparison, but laws like S58 are indeed the thin edge of wedge.

Irony is, when I was a young, volatile and violent activist - and my record in this area may help you identify me Mr HMRC Drone - I was forever telling the spineless middle classes that if they stood by and let this happen to what they considered the 'out-group', they'd be next. So time passes, I buck my ideas up and effectively become one of those middle classes, and find myself, all too predictably, on the tulip end of the stick again.

There's no peace to be had, unless you want to keep your head down and be a clone of Mr Quiet Life. Buck the trend one iota and your card is marked, whatever your stock.

[SantaClaus]

Im doing nothing of the sort.

Look, forget about the scheme worked and wasnt a fiddle. We all believe that. We are not dealing with that issue. We are talking about how HMRC will deal with the appeals post final judgement.

You can chuck Parker's deliberation and Padmore in all you want but when it comes to it, the tribunal \ commissioners will look at the judgements handed down by the 3 courts regarding BN66.

As for taking a balance view, come on. Im all for that.

Let's leave the legal side of things to Montpelier, because to be honest none of us are lawyers and we don't know how things will be dealt with after the judgement. Working in a DHSS office during the miners strike, does not qualify you to answer questions that will affect people's future.

I don't know how deep in this mess you are, but many of us stand to be made bankrupt, lose our homes, health, jobs and financial stability for our children.

If you want to play ego's, please take your comments to the General forum where they love that sort of thing. I would like to see some positive, constructive comments on this thread that may actually help people, rather than bringing them down.

[Lazylobster]

Did anyone else get the mail shot from MGM re: the court case?

Interesting reading

LL

[Taffia]

Emigre, I couldnt agree more.....!!

If we do win then I think we should all pop down to Miss Miggins pie shop for a slap up lunch

I have to say I've been feeling very negative recently. I'd just like to ask if Mrs. Miggions is making a huge celebratory pie in the shape of a huge pie? Ah, top stuff!!!

Still feeling negative but, after lots of wine, we are still right, and this is very very wrong.

If this goes through I fear for the future of my very young childen in this country.