BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Lets hope someone in HMRC is going to be held responsible for this, and maybe then someone higher up in HMRC might take a wider look at how HMRC have dealt with Montp.

I expect the Isle of Man authorities might be a wee bit cross with HMRC, especially when they get saddled with a bill for "substantial damages".

https://www.professionalpassport.com...onsultancy/714

"HMRC would like to thank the Isle of Man authorities for their co-operation and assistance in this enquiry."

[smalldog]

Come on MP, take em to the F***ing cleaners!!!!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Come on MP, take em to the F***ing cleaners!!!!

I don't think MP can go after HMRC for this.

All HMRC did was request the searches.

It was the IoM authorities who granted the warrants and swore in the HMRC officers as special cuntstables for the day.

Of course, if the IoM authorities have any complaints about how this turned out, they may decide to take this up with HMRC.

[Emigre]

I expect the Isle of Man authorities might be a wee bit cross with HMRC, especially when they get saddled with a bill for "substantial damages".

https://www.professionalpassport.com...onsultancy/714

"HMRC would like to thank the Isle of Man authorities for their co-operation and assistance in this enquiry."

Perhaps the deceit lies in the following quote "suspected fraudulent tax avoidance schemes".

Does such a thing exist in UK tax law? There is an admission in here that it is avoidance and not evasion and thus surely by logical extension it cannot be fraudulent. If our scheme is one of the 4 they have already admitted that it is not fraudulent by not trying to levy penalties in the CNs. QED. Lock up the whole department and feed fat Hartnett to the cannibals.

HMRC are out of control and need to start being held responsible for their actions.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Hopefully the IoM authorities have learned an important lesson, albeit the hard way.

If you bend over to help HMRC, then you should expect to get fu<ked.

[screwthis]

I expect the Isle of Man authorities might be a wee bit cross with HMRC, especially when they get saddled with a bill for "substantial damages".

https://www.professionalpassport.com...onsultancy/714

"HMRC would like to thank the Isle of Man authorities for their co-operation and assistance in this enquiry."

"The judge ruled that Mr Huitson had taken out the scheme with the full knowledge that he was avoiding tax and said that HMRC had warned users of schemes that they may face a legal challenge."

Isn't that the whole point? AVOIDING tax = legal. All tax planning works under the full knowledge that you are avoiding tax.
And when were scheme users warned? 2004 as I recall from an earlier post...after the tax years for which they are pursuing me.

[Toocan]

And when were scheme users warned? 2004 as I recall from an earlier post...after the tax years for which they are pursuing me.

The "2004 warning" was aimed at employment/PAYE schemes. The DTA scheme did not involve any employment or PAYE.

The statement that there was warning of retrospective closure was also used in Parliament when section 58 was debated but it was not explained when this warning was give nor what form it took.

HMRC later admited, in a FOI response, that they considered the 1987 "Padmore" legislation to be a warning.

Judge Parker found that the scheme was not caught by the 1987 legislation - a fact that is widely acknowledged not least by HM Treasury's actions.

As the scheme was not caught by the 1987 Padmore legislation there is no reasonable nor logical explaination as to how the word "clarification" could be used in linking section 58 to the 1987 legisation.

The whole basis under which section 58 was presented to Parliament has been shown to be built on lies. Parliament was misled.

David Gauke was not the secretary of state responsible for these untruths. But he is the secretary of state now, and he is responsible for the words of those who have occupied his chair. His performance in the committee that examined section 58 demonstrates that he has a very good understanding of both the mechanics of the scheme and the fairness of section 58.

[Toocan]

I don't think MP can go after HMRC for this.

All HMRC did was request the searches.

Was there not also action in the UK on that day. This may give Montpelier the oppertunity to engage HMRC directly.

HMRC have been shown to be incompetant again and again - if the board of a company had had half as many failures as HMRC have had recently, they would have been replaced. Why are they still in position, taking public money for such a poor job?

[BolshieBastard]

David Gauke was not the secretary of state responsible for these untruths. But he is the secretary of state now, and he is responsible for the words of those who have occupied his chair. His performance in the committee that examined section 58 demonstrates that he has a very good understanding of both the mechanics of the scheme and the fairness of section 58.

And?

I have had my MP challenge Gauke at least 3 times on his 'position' on BN66 before he was rewarded with a Government position and his current position of sitting on his hands.

His excuse is and I quote, 'this matter should be left to the courts.'

How the **** can he argue against BN66 when in opposition and do **** all when he is in a position to actually do something about it?

I'll tell you how, because he's got what he wants. He wants to be in a position of authority. Perversely now he has it, he wont ******* use it except to maintain the status quo he argued against.

Gauke may have a good grasp of the issue but what good is that when you have the power to do something about it, you do **** all?

[PlaneSailing]

Was there not also action in the UK on that day. This may give Montpelier the oppertunity to engage HMRC directly.

HMRC have been shown to be incompetent again and again - if the board of a company had had half as many failures as HMRC have had recently, they would have been replaced. Why are they still in position, taking public money for such a poor job?

I feel another FOI request coming on. I wonder how much of my tax money has been
spent on this little fiasco?

I bet they don't keep records.

And for any HMRC snoopers (we know you're watching) I hope you feel good about
the 40 people you've rendered unemployed.