BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

All,

There has been a lot of posting recently about losing your home and
bankruptcy. Can I suggest that you read the following carefully. There is
a phone number which I suggest you call if you wish to dicuss your
situation further.

http://www.nationaldebtline.co.uk/en...e_county_court

As you will see, the selling of the family home is not as straight forward
as someone coming round and turfing you out onto the streets. Indeed, and
I know this will not benefit everyone, where dependents (children) are
living there, it becomes more difficult for your family home to be sold.
It is also true that where there are other interested parties such as your
partner they are allowed to make representation to a court as to why the
family home should not be sold.

Under the Trusts of Land & Appointment of Trustees Act 1996, the court has
discretion to say the family's interests outweigh the creditor's
interests. Whilst this may be less powerful with a creditor such as HMRC,
it is still legally relevant.

And in any event, the presence of a family protects the sale of the family
home or bankruptcy for 12 months so you can get your family affairs in
order.

To keep this forum on topic and to focus on the court process if you have
anything to add or refute about this post, please PM me and I will amend
accordingly. That way we keep focus on the public view of this thread.

I know this is no magic bullet and that the information in the link does
not cover every issue for every person but it's a start. I will research
more like this to provide some reassurance that there is no default
position from which there is no escape.

Also, bankruptcy is to pay off debts, not to sell the family home. These 2
events can be linked and often are but they are still distinct in legal process.

In the meantime, our case still has a long way to run.

It appears that a significant number of cases where a charging order is
placed on a property or forced sale occurs is down to people not doing the
research and planning before it's too late.

So please read, phone the contact number if you wish and understand that
your home may still be at risk, but possibly at less risk than you thought
it was a few days ago.

There's more out there on this including case-law and I will post what I find
once rationalised.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

The law of tax physics

It occurred to me today that UK Plc is in a rather bad way. The latest Government sold off a rather large nugget of the country’s gold for a knock down price soon after they came into power. Good move Crash Gordon. Then we had a rather large feast of public spending, increase in the public sector, a couple of wars and the Credit Crunch.

We’re in debt to over a trillion quid as a nation. I’m not particularly bothered by the exact amount since rather like going faster than light; it seems rather pedantic to state that you’re going twice the speed of light. Therefore, I’m happy that having crossed the trillion quid mark in overall debt (not the same as current borrowing of a mere 170 billion quid); it makes little sense to play on numbers. Suffice it to say that the number is astronomical, or should that be astrophysical? Either way it’s pretty big.

I have read various commentaries about how UK Plc’s AAA rating is not as precarious as some think due to the long term investments in realizing the related borrowing coming to maturity. Not sure what this really means, but it sounds more like the value of a rank cheese and it stinks.

So what has been going on to address this rather sizable Social Policy issue? Well, it appears that Government has been rather busy to say the least. The climate is spiraling out of control nearly as fast as our National Debt. So we have all manner of green haired weird beard taxes to address this. I’m rather concerned by such actions since if UK Plc cannot balance its books then I’m not entirely convinced it can balance the climate. I may be wrong, but I doubt it. We’re all told to spend less and save more. We’re told that we should reduce our debt. We’re told that there’s a ‘long and precarious road to recovery’. Well, after BN66 there'll be a few less around to help with that recovery. And as for saving more, well I don't think I need to add anything to that story for those folks unless Social Security offer ISA's for the financially ruined.

We have a gaping hole in the hull of UK Plc and Captain Brown together with First Mate Darling and Engine Room Master Timms realize that the motors of UK Plc are running out of whatever drives large engines on big ships. Call it money for now.

The nautical theme is not lost on my view of the current situation. One could take the stowage passengers and cast them adrift in an effort to right the ship, or one could throw the Captain and his jolly “Rogers” overboard and let someone else including steerage take a lead. Please understand that steerage passengers are us in Labour terms, not the layabouts on sun deck being waitered on by Prescott in his past life.

It seems to me rather “the ship is sinking” as a mentality to think that retrospection has any fundamental principle. If you build the ship well in the first place, avoid (sic) stormy waters and have a good crew, you will not find yourself in the situation that the Good Ship UK Plc today finds itself.

Which brings me onto retrospection and the current legal aspects of it, bankruptcy and all the other “move the deck chairs around” mentality (and I use the latter word with purpose).

Making an otherwise income generating person bankrupt, chasing their presumed debts, taking away the family home in many cases in return for less than anything like a gain of the losses assumed seems like a rather draconian measure. I mean, in context of the monies being banded around, which makes me feel somewhat less assured that the authorities have a grasp of this matter, that is to say ‘is it 100M, 200M or 300M?’ or by the way, ‘it is 100.438M’ which would indeed make me feel that they actually know what is going on. I cannot find any reasonable, fair, economically or public interest relevant position in pursuing this matter via retrospection. Not least since it will no doubt raise less monies than something, anything, more constructive could do. It’s rather like a prison sentence via being put at a social disadvantage. But then it occurred to me. Rather like traveling faster than the speed of light, we’re in the realms of fiction rather than fact. And oh, if we were to travel faster than the speed of light, we’d be going backwards in time. Also known as retrospection. I knew there was a link. Flash Gordon it is then! For now...

[SantaClaus]

Good post, TSBT!

Anyone see the irony and some parallels in this?

• Government uses taxpayers money to bail out otherwise bankrupt banks with no hope of any net benefit.
• Government bankrupts hard working Joe Public just to prove a point with no hope of any net benefit.

To continue with the nautical analogy, the UK is the sinking ship Titanic. The upper classes have already left in the lifeboats. Only the rats are left and they are scrambling to get out.

[SantaClaus]

A biased write up on tax avoidance. I notice Montpelier is mentioned but they get the details of the scheme wrong and completely forget to mention that HMRC knew all of the details from the start.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...ance-crackdown

The Guardian! biased?

Is the pope catholic?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Poll

If anyone hasn't voted, please register and cast your vote.

http://forums.contractoruk.com/register.php

What are people's views on the Poll? Is it a bit of a downer being constantly reminded that people's homes are at risk?

At some point I could ask the Administrator to move it somewhere else.

[not-a-penny]

If anyone hasn't voted, please register and cast your vote.

http://forums.contractoruk.com/register.php

What are people's views on the Poll? Is it a bit of a downer being constantly reminded that people's homes are at risk?

At some point I could ask the Administrator to move it somewhere else.

I've already voted but was just curious about the third option "N/A". When would N/A apply? Assuming this poll is for MP clients only then the question is straightforward yes or no. Anyone can give an example of N/A?

On an unrelated subject, apologies to my better half for ... I know this is the quickest way to get a message to her

[TAF4]

Morale.

I don't think the poll is having any influence on morale overall. Those that have voted probably ignore it in the header location, yet those still to vote have the status readily visible.

The current lowering of morale in my case is arising from the increasingly pervasive HMRC strategy of closing any and all avoidance strategies and branding them artificial. We have seen Image Rights, non-domicile guidance, bonuses provided as shares all attacked during the last week - and probably many more still to come. All of these planning strategies are now being smeared with the 'avoidance' epithet which has itself been traduced into an equivalence with 'evasion'. The HMRC attacks are also being applied retrospectively on the grounds that the planning strategies are contrived purely to avoid paying the tax due. Since when was that wrong? The tax wasn't due in the past.

[Morlock]

vainglourious basterds


I can't trust myself to say anything other than "Please sign this petition":
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/notompmedals
More background at:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...se-medals.html

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I've already voted but was just curious about the third option "N/A". When would N/A apply? Assuming this poll is for MP clients only then the question is straightforward yes or no. Anyone can give an example of N/A?

Not really sure why I included that but, as it is, only a handful of people have selected it.

[KiwiGuy]

I can't trust myself to say anything other than "Please sign this petition":
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/notompmedals
More background at:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...se-medals.html

voted