BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I don't know what this means: "prejudice the assessment or collection of tax". Does this mean that if they
let the information out, we'd all then know a legal route to avoid tax?

If so, it's bit late for that as they've already enatced a retrospective change to the law.

OR perhaps their court case would collapse and they wouldn't be able to collect anything from us.

[smalldog]

OR perhaps their court case would collapse and they wouldn't be able to collect anything from us.

Our legal team are aware of the refusal to handover this information I assume? If so can they cite this as critical to the appeal case and force its disclosure? As you said, withholding evidence is a big no no in legal cases so why should this be any different?

[centurian]

In criminal proceedings this would be deemed withholding evidence, which is against the law.

In a criminal case, only the prosecution is required to disclose evidence that is pertinent to the other side, not the defence.

While this may feel like a criminal prosecution as it's the entire weight of the state, I presume this is actually a civil case ????

For civil cases, both sides have to disclose information that they intend to use, well in advance - to allow the other side to chew it over. Not sure of the requirement to disclose information that the the other side might find interesting to their case though.

[warlord]

Responce from David Gauke - HM Treasury

Just received from my MP the standard letter response from the Minster in charge of Section 58, David Gauke.
Thanks you for your letter requesting section 58 to be repealed, blah, blah, I am the replying minster as the minster responsible for this policy area.
While I can understand your constituent’s concerns blah, blah, we are not in a position to agree to their request.
We are in general opposed to retrospective legislation blah, blah,
The legislation is currently with the courts and we believe it should run its course.
I have spoken to HMRC about potential difficulties scheme users may face blah blah...
Yours
David Gauke

Nice........

[theoctopus]

standard repsonse for Gauke

received the standard reply from Mr Gauke via Stephen Hammond (Con. - Wimbledon) yesterday. 'we wont do anything, wait for the courts to do their thing, sorry if you can't pay, blah, blah, blah..........'

sad how quickly they have gone from opposing the legislation to now not giving a rats

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Obtaining information from HMRC

It has been pointed out to me that, even if we could obtain incriminating evidence from HMRC (even if it pointed to corruption/conspiracy), it wouldn't help us in the Court of Appeal.

The CoA will only be looking at this from the narrow point of view as to whether s.58 complies with European Law (HR & EU Treaty).

The justication for the legislation, the history of the scheme and HMRC's behaviour is largely irrelevant.

Even the question as to whether the scheme worked or not, prior to s.58, is irrelevant.

This is why the CoA are unlikely to order the disclosure of any documents because none of this information would be pertinent to the points of law being considered.

Does that make sense?

Having said all that, I think we should still keep pushing via FOI etc to get this information because it would strengthen any future grounds for repeal.

[anxious1]

David Gauke letter

Got mine, dated 21st straight from the horses mouth as he's my MP - same thing though! Obviously sent out a few, just filled in the blanks. I particularly like the last line 'Thank you for taking the trouble to make us aware of these concerns.' - do you think that's meant to be a joke?

I'll keep this letter with the one he sent me last year which has a handwritten PS on it regarding the Section 58 finance committee debate '....... in which I spoke in opposition of the measure'. Words are cheap eh!

[BarneyCool]

Why not send him another letter.

Got mine, dated 21st straight from the horses mouth as he's my MP - same thing though! Obviously sent out a few, just filled in the blanks. I particularly like the last line 'Thank you for taking the trouble to make us aware of these concerns.' - do you think that's meant to be a joke?

I'll keep this letter with the one he sent me last year which has a handwritten PS on it regarding the Section 58 finance committee debate '....... in which I spoke in opposition of the measure'. Words are cheap eh!

And just ask him straight. Why he and the rest of his weasels are such dirty lieing bastards. They all absolutely make me puke and I do not think for one second that they give a monkeys toss as to whether or not you and your family are made homeless. They probably enjoy the fact that they now have the power to be able to inflict this amount tulip on people. useless fking pr1cks!

[PlaneSailing]

It has been pointed out to me that, even if we could obtain incriminating evidence from HMRC (even if it pointed to corruption/conspiracy), it wouldn't help us in the Court of Appeal.

The CoA will only be looking at this from the narrow point of view as to whether s.58 complies with European Law (HR & EU Treaty).

The justication for the legislation, the history of the scheme and HMRC's behaviour is largely irrelevant.

Even the question as to whether the scheme worked or not, prior to s.58, is irrelevant.

This is why the CoA are unlikely to order the disclosure of any documents because none of this information would be pertinent to the points of law being considered.

Does that make sense?

Having said all that, I think we should still keep pushing via FOI etc to get this information because it would strengthen any future grounds for repeal.

I still think this is valuable information. If we knew that HMRC were pushing on with this
legal case despite them knowing that they'd have little chance of ultimately succeeding, I'm sure
the New Government would like to know. That would save the Public Purse a fair amount or money.

Didn't Mr Hartnet (between meals) advocate taking punts on cases where the Revenue stood
less than 50% chance of winning?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I still think this is valuable information. If we knew that HMRC were pushing on with this
legal case despite them knowing that they'd have little chance of ultimately succeeding, I'm sure
the New Government would like to know. That would save the Public Purse a fair amount or money.

Absolutely!

And we're drafting a new letter asking the Govt to release the files outside of the Freedom of Information Act.

If they believe it was wrong in principle, then surely the very least they could do is open up the files to public scrutiny.