BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Deliverance

You know, unless you're of an intellect that doesn't mind the notion of running away with your sisters daughter, you'd be hard pushed to read the text from Timms to the JCHR and not ask a few questions on how this notion of retro sits with our case.

Timms quotes the text on page 3 and one wonders where in hell he thinks that sits with a State that sat on its hands for 6 years and then uses the word proportional in the same sentence.

But he does at least go on the quote the "unless it is devoid of reasonable foundation" phrase of A1P1 in terms of wide margin of appreciation. Devoid is the key word I think. Why? Well, again it should be obvious to anyone other than those who had the "squeal like a pig" type of upbringing.

So (and in the spirit of BN66) to clarify this reasoning I offer this:

HMRC can legally go back over 6 years Returns.
BN66 is actually restrospective for all the 6 years they could have acted and didn't
Every year Finance Acts afford Parliament the opprtunity to resolve loopholes but in this case, 6 of them went by the wayside.
HMRC consistently claimed the scheme didn't work (except for TN63 of course)
HMRC never claimed it didn't work because of Padmore
The fecking Ghost of Padmore Past was resurrected to become the Ghost of Padmore Present.
There was a risk to the Exchequer Timms then claimed. You betya mate. But only because of 6 years not having a clue what to do about the scheme. And why? Because it was legal
Timms refers to the fact that if in an applicants specific circumstances, the retrospective application of the law imposed an unreasonable burden on them and therefore failed to strike a fair balance between the various interests involved then it could violate this wide margin. Well, take a look at this Forum fella. I think you have the answer.

So I just hope that at some juncture there is someone with a say that does not think of me as John Voight or lived in a backwater creek with their sisters daughter. Then maybe, the blindingly obvious will come to light and Deliverance will take on a whole new meaning.

NB: All comments made are Without Prejudice. That prevents them being used in Court under law.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Pop Quiz

Q. How long is a PhD course at Cambridge University in Astrosphysics?
A. 3 years

Q. How long did it take to fight WW2?
A. 6 years

Q. How long can male sperm survive outside the body?
A. About 1 hour

Q. How long did it take to build the Great Wall of China?
A. 20 years

Q. How long did it take HMRC to remember Padmore?
A. 6 years

So in context, I'd say that building a wall around your empire takes about 3 times as long as remembering what you claim to know, twice as long as learning what you didn't know, the same amount of time to save the world from tyranny and way longer than it takes for a w*nker to have what he produced die off.

On that basis I'd rate BN66 as somewhere between knocking one out and locking oneself in. Without Prejudice of course....

[centurian]

NB: All comments made are Without Prejudice. That prevents them being used in Court under law.

No it doesn't - otherwise everyone would attach Without Prejudice to everything to prevent it from being used in court.

Without Prejudice generally has meaning when you are making/negotiating an offer of settlement. Courts want you to settle amicably without wasting their time. However, since an offer of settlement might be viewed as evidence of a weak argument, an offer can be made "without prejudice" - which means the offer does not prejudice your overall case. The judge will not allow such discussions to be introduced as evidence in court.

You can put the words "without prejudice" on anything you like - but it's largely meaningless unless it relates to settlement discussions.

[johnnyguitar]

Closure Notice

having a paperwork sort-out and I cam across my HMRC letter where they had completed their enquires into year ending April 2006 and April 2007, detailing the amounts that they think I owe.

This letter is dated 13th March 2009 - how does that fit in with deadlines within which they have to query a retun ? or is it the date of the 'we are investigating you' letter?

[screwthis]

having a paperwork sort-out and I cam across my HMRC letter where they had completed their enquires into year ending April 2006 and April 2007, detailing the amounts that they think I owe.

This letter is dated 13th March 2009 - how does that fit in with deadlines within which they have to query a retun ? or is it the date of the 'we are investigating you' letter?

My understanding is that they have one year within which to open an enquiry.
For me, and I suspect most of us, they did this in the last week or so of the year.

The amounts they think you owe should have been on the closure letter which can come years later as in your case.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

having a paperwork sort-out and I cam across my HMRC letter where they had completed their enquires into year ending April 2006 and April 2007, detailing the amounts that they think I owe.

This letter is dated 13th March 2009 - how does that fit in with deadlines within which they have to query a retun ? or is it the date of the 'we are investigating you' letter?

For the years ending Apr 2006 and Apr 2007, they have until 31 Jan 2008 and 31 Jan 2009 respectively to investigate the returns*. Once they have opened enquiries, there is no time limit for issuing Closure Notices.

In cases where they have missed the 31 Jan deadline, they have often used "Discovery" to get around this.

(* you should have received letters stating that they are opening enquiries under Code of Practice 8)

[johnnyguitar]

For the years ending Apr 2006 and Apr 2007, they have until 31 Jan 2008 and 31 Jan 2009 respectively to investigate the returns*. Once they have opened enquiries, there is no time limit for issuing Closure Notices.

In cases where they have missed the 31 Jan deadline, they have often used "Discovery" to get around this.

(* you should have received letters stating that they are opening enquiries under Code of Practice 8)

OK - thanks. So, basically, even if they missed the original deadline (must dig out the original docs), they're trying to squirm out of it. It's like attempting a logical discussion with a small, petulant child.

[smalldog]

OK - thanks. So, basically, even if they missed the original deadline (must dig out the original docs), they're trying to squirm out of it. It's like attempting a logical discussion with a small, petulant child.

there doesnt seem to be any point in HMRC having any rules, whatever they cock up there seems to be some small piece of regulation that allows them to weedle out of it...

[SantaClaus]

there doesnt seem to be any point in HMRC having any rules, whatever they cock up there seems to be some small piece of regulation that allows them to weedle out of it...

Yep, think communist state, and you will be closer to understanding how HMRC work in conjunction with her majesty's govt.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

So, basically, even if they missed the original deadline (must dig out the original docs), they're trying to squirm out of it.

Correct. They're claiming that the wording on the returns wasn't obvious enough.