BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[SantaClaus]

Maybe we should have pleaded "technical problems" as our defense at the COA. Wonder how far that would have gone with the judges.

Reminds me that whenever a politician commits some misdemeanor, it's a "mistake", when the public does the same, it's an "offence."

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Like TSBT, I don't wish to dwell on this depressing (and hopefully purely hypothetical) topic.

But if you think BR is a probable worst-case scenario, it might be worth having a read of this guy's experience with HMRC.

MoneySavingExpert.com Forums - View Single Post - HMRC and BANKRUPTCY

I'm not in this position myself but if I was then I'd definitely get professional help.

DR, a good read and points well made. There is a process and it appears HMRC are as inconsistent with this as they are with the 6 years of BN66. I would advise anyone who gets into this end goal to get a good Brief and ensure that process is followed. One point I held back was that the Brief I spoke to just before Xmas said that if you get a good Brief and fire some shots at HMRC, they might just get a little more ready to talk but you need a legal letter to have that. It might not stop the process itself but all the defaults of poor behaviour get considered to avoid them getting a knock in the Courts.

Anyways, before then, there is the CoA, Supreme Court, Europe, the Press, Solicitors, kids, dependent family members living in your house, stress and illness, GP signing you off from work due to this, a good Brief to work with an IP if it comes to that, a couple of years before anything actually happens if HMRC say they're coming, payment plans, revised payment plans, Tomlin Orders, Voluntary Charges...

So in a way, whilst things are not great at the moment and many "owe" too much to pay as a result of HMRC changing the law backwards, there's a whole bunch of hurdles for them to get over before you lose anything. You never know, if the worst happens, then you're looking at 2+ years before you part with a single penny.

But first things first - CoA. I just want folks to know what should happen with due process. And if HMRC don't follow it then they can give HMRC a good kick in the balls to remind them. I suspect they will then take a little more care over what they do next. I doubt a Court will grant a BO by default if you can prove that they were simply thugs who acted as illegally as they did with their MontP raids.

[Slobbo]

Getting sick of the wait

I want the judgement to happen. I am getting stressed waiting. At least when we know the outcome of the CoA we will know where we are heading or at least the next step.

This whole thing really makes a mockery of the parliamentary process and the law. Kinda feels like your "guilty until proven innocent" when I thought it was supposed to be the other way around.

It really shows how two faced politicians are. With our stanch supporters (torys and lib dems) ignoring us when they got into power and could actually do something about it.

It is a shame that politics seems to gather power hungry idiots rather than people that genuinely want to make society better.

A friend of mines father owned a business in the 70's which grew rapidly and the HMRC didn't like the books (although correct). The stress HMRC put him under was extreme. His wife went in one day to try and sort it out. After getting nowhere she threw the keys to them and said "if you think you can do better you can have the f@cking business" and walked out. They chased her and called her back in deciding that perhaps it wasn't a tax dodge.

Same guy had a tax inspector friend who told him HMRC don't bother chasing the Asian businesses (like cash and carrys and takeaways) because they end up spending more than they get out of it. The asians change the owner of the business regularly so they never reach the VAT threshold and other dodges like that. I don't mean to offend, this is as it was told to me and is only a small sub section of that community. I know lots of excellent asian folk. What irks me here and is my point, that we are soft targets for HMRC. We follow the law and pay what is legally required but as they know they can get to us easily they change the law and make it retrospective. Send a few letters and most of us will pay up if we can. Thankfully MontP have stood by us and taken the bull by the horns. If they hadn't been there for us I would now be in a council house collecting my dole money each week because I would have had (and might still) no career left. This because I work in an industry that will not employ anyone with any sort of financial irregularities. Net result - HMRC a few grand up. Taxpayer thousands down paying for my council house and food each week.

If we loose I am back where I was when I started work 20 years ago but with a wife and 2 dependant children. I am scared and feel responsible for putting my wife through hell even though I didn't do anything wrong. How may I ask is that "Fair".

[DonkeyRhubarb]

One final point on this topic.

If BR is likely then you might as well throw any spare cash you can lay your hands on to hire the best Brief possible.

After all, if BR does happen then this spare cash would only end up going to HMRC.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

One final point on this topic.

If BR is likely then you might as well throw any spare cash you can lay your hands on to hire the best Brief possible.

After all, if BR does happen then this spare cash would only end up going to HMRC.

AMEN to that brother (or donkey).

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Calling Hector

If HMRC are reading this thread, what do you think about being called out and meet with a group from this Forum and explain your reasoning for BN66, 6 years of inaction, never mentioning Padmore before 2008, the test cases scheduled for the Commissioners that never were, TE63, misleading Parliament etc..? You can bring your Silks and we can have the meeting audited by an independent person. You can ask what you like and we can do the same. No legal status attached but the minutes are made available to the Press.

As we're your "Customers" I think we're entitled to this. And I suggest Hartnett does the HMRC pitch. If you're so sure of your case and feel so certain you're in the right then I'm sure you'd relish the opportunity. Big Society, Big State, LIttle People, Open Democracy.

So Hector, if you want to go toe to toe on this, then roll the dice and take your best shot. Let's see who has the most factual case. If you reckon you're in the right then come out and take us on in a public forum and let the People decide. You're part of a Big Society says Cameron. So get involved, make your case and answer the questions of your Customers. You want credibility? Then let's dance.

If you want to quote this Forum in Court, then quote this opportunity. Or are you as devoid of morality, lacking in decency, too beyond reproach and unaccountable as the record suggests? Hide behind the red tape if you like, but we'll know that it explains you for what you are. Or come out and make a fair fight of it. Us (without lawyers) against you and your Silks with just an independent auditor to take notes on what was said. Do it at your office if you like just to make you feel safer. Not a bad offer from one of your pissed off Customers don't you think?

Oh and I bet you drive a Prius, think that patio heaters melt polar bears and that curly kayle is nice to eat. In other words, you're an enviro-mental vegetablist.

[RichardCranium]

If HMRC are reading this thread, what do you think about being called out and meet with a group from this Forum and explain your reasoning for BN66, 6 years of inaction, never mentioning Padmore before 2008, the test cases scheduled for the Commissioners that never were, TE63, misleading Parliament etc.?

Is that wise and safe, whilst still going through court action?

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Is that wise and safe, whilst still going through court action?

If that was HMRC saying that, I'd say not. Don't recall saying there was anything legally binding. Just put your cards on the table. Or in the case of HMRC, put the Joker on the table as their hand is empty in the cold light of reason. I reckon there's a fair few of us that would be quite happy to ask some rather direct questions of Hector that they may not feel keen to answer. Besides, if they're so sure of their case, then they should look forward to explaining themselves. I mean, there's clearly no doubt that they had this all figured out from day 1 and never spent 6 years naval gazing before some intern came up with Padmore V2 and applied it with the opposite effect, forgot about 5 test cases they asked us to stand by the Commissioners ruling or that TE63 was nothing more than a comment on the hoof or that Parliament could have been misled or that... Well I could go on, but that would be better for a pow-wow with Hector.

[SantaClaus]

Is that wise and safe, whilst still going through court action?

I have to agree with Richard. Talking to HMRC is a definite no-no as it may prejudice our case.

[OnYourBikeGB]

I want the judgement to happen. I am getting stressed waiting. At least when we know the outcome of the CoA we will know where we are heading or at least the next step.

I'm finding it stressful as well, everyday I'm wondering if this will be the one we find out how much our lives could be ruined or given back to us. But I still believe the longer it drags on, the more it suggests that the three are carefully sifting the issues, and that must tilt the scales away from HMRC. They'd have loved another Parker fast track, and they're not getting it. Of course, there's the PWC argument as well, bult I got he feeling that this was almost dismissed.

These are three experienced, and I hope, wise judges. They will understand the implications of their decisions not only for our small world, but the constitutional implications. They are appointed to uphold not the government, but the law. I do not believe that HMRC will escape without severe criticism.

There's not a lot we can do but wait, I just take comfort in knowing that Hector is sweating too, and quite possibly more than us. If we lose, there will be flak. They will have to go after all those big stars, or the government will be accused of favouring the rich and famous over fairly ordinary people. They have no excuse not to persecute, they have retrospection. They can't make the excuse of clever tax schemes any more (and thanks for your donations). If they lose, they will be humiliated. And fingers will be pointed and individuals could pay the price.

So we wait, but while we wait, we have hope, and the longer the wait perhaps the more hope we have.