BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Hey DR

After reading the MP's debate on Section 58 of BN66, I was curious on whether we ever got back correspondence from David Gauke etc. I vaguely remember you possibly writing to him -> Correct me if I am wrong.
Did we ever try and approach the rest of the MP's that debated this legislation.
Attempt to clarify the facts to all of them, of the underhand tactics that the Revenue had done over the years.
And how Parlaiment were quite obviously deceived.

Gauke didn't want to know. He even fobbed off several of his own constituents who wrote to him saying they were affected.

Now that this is a matter for the courts, MPs won't get involved. (Not that they did much anyway.)

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I know its a small sample but 60% of 2500 = 1500 people losing their homes..
how the f did it all come to this?

This is what one of our "friends" from Up North gave in written evidence to the JR.

"Following Royal Assent, in July 2008, some of the IT contractors who used the avoidance scheme have claimed that they are unable to pay the tax that would be due as a direct result of S58. They claim that because of S58 marriages are being put at risk, they may lose their houses to fund the liability or in extreme cases they may even be declared bankrupt.

I believe, however, that the reality is that all users of the scheme were aware that they were using a tax avoidance scheme and that they might, eventually, have to pay the tax they had tried to avoid plus interest on the late payment of the tax. If they chose to spend the tax avoided rather than put it to one side to await the final outcome then that was a choice they made to risk their house and other assets."

[patbikeruk]

Nice Attitude.......

Just goes to show what a bunch of heartless people they are.......
No real surprises there then........

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Brave or stupid?

Just goes to show what a bunch of heartless people they are.......
No real surprises there then........

Would you put your name to such a statement when you knew there were 2500 really angry/desperate people out there, many of whom were facing losing their homes, marriage breakdown, bankruptcy etc?

I know I wouldn't!!!

PS. same goes for Mr YouKnowWho with his snidey letters.

[PlaneSailing]

This is what one of our "friends" from Up North gave in written evidence to the JR.

"Following Royal Assent, in July 2008, some of the IT contractors who used the avoidance scheme have claimed that they are unable to pay the tax that would be due as a direct result of S58. They claim that because of S58 marriages are being put at risk, they may lose their houses to fund the liability or in extreme cases they may even be declared bankrupt.

I believe, however, that the reality is that all users of the scheme were aware that they were using a tax avoidance scheme and that they might, eventually, have to pay the tax they had tried to avoid plus interest on the late payment of the tax. If they chose to spend the tax avoided rather than put it to one side to await the final outcome then that was a choice they made to risk their house and other assets."

Is this quote attributed to anyone?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Is this quote attributed to anyone?

Yep. Signed statement.

(It wasn't Mr YouKnowWho.)

[Emigre]

Perhaps he got the idea from here? - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs . It's a speech from Daniel Hannan to Gordon Brown at the European Parliament. It is almost a year old but still brings a smile to my face. No doubt you have seen it. (I'd love to hear this eloquent gentleman speaking from our corner!)

I have been lurking too long (since JR). Apologies. I would like to thank DR et al for all their informative posts and insightful commentary. You have boosted my morale and educated me on a number of occasions. Thanks again.

Like many in this forum I have several CNs in my collection. They take me well into the 6 figures. I intend to fight this all the way purely and simply because what HMRC is attempting to do is illegal and must be stopped. Society is the loser without the rule of law.

I love that Daniel Hannan speech. The best bit is that protocol in the European Parliament forbids interruption so he had to just sit there and take it.

Welcome to the thread and thanks for delurking.

[poppy01]

Not sure what you were expecting yesterday but it was only an oral hearing to decide if they could have a substantive hearing, and at least they didn't get turned down.

i expect nothign from the legal process other than postponement of the day the bailiffs come

[PlaneSailing]

Yep. Signed statement.

(It wasn't Mr YouKnowWho.)

It's a good job s/he said 'I believe' otherwise I would have
had to consider making a complaint.

To be clear to our 'friends', retrospection was not expected by anyone.

I have a suspicion that the person in question is no longer there though,
if I remember correctly.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

To be clear to our 'friends', retrospection was not expected by anyone.

I have a suspicion that the person in question is no longer there though,
if I remember correctly.

I suspect this HMRC officer was in the thick of it (retrospection) right from the start.

The statement was signed just before Xmas, and as far I know he is still there.