BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[SantaClaus]

I must just add that the image of HMRC Counsel offering up before 3 CoA Judges "evidence" that a blog full of Donkeys, Santas and the like should carry some value to their case seems a little - unprofessional. I mean "Ma Lud, Donkey Rhubarb claims that... and then Santa Klaus said that....". No wonder the Judges were less than eager to consider this. A rather demeaining level to stoop in such a court me thinks. But flattering nonetheless.

I hope you're not implying that SantaClaus isn't real. He definitely is, as Manchester CID know all too well.

(an in-joke for longer-term members of the forum)

[SantaClaus]

It's a great tale but I doubt very much the gibbering baboons at HMRC know anything like that. They can't even get their webbed appendages to work their computers correctly in order to send the right tax bills to a few million people, I doubt very much they've mastered the ability to utilise the Internet beyond managing to load this forum 1 time in 10, and they probably had to go on a course for that.

The opening scene of 2001 springs to mind.

I'm just trying to imagine Dave Hartnett as a baboon.... got it! didn't even need to use my imagination that time.

[OnYourBikeGB]

It's a great tale but I doubt very much the gibbering baboons at HMRC know anything like that. They can't even get their webbed appendages to work their computers correctly in order to send the right tax bills to a few million people, I doubt very much they've mastered the ability to utilise the Internet beyond managing to load this forum 1 time in 10, and they probably had to go on a course for that.

The opening scene of 2001 springs to mind.

I'm not so sure. We've underestimated them before, and look where we are, we can take the piss out of them, and God they deserve it, but so far they have worked the system more successfully we have, no matter what we think of them. What I'm wondering is how did they link us? Either they monitor this website religiously, analyse what we say and how we say it and tick it off (possible), or alternatively they have acquired a list from somewhere they are cross-referencing to identify who we are across the forums. Ok, it's a longshot I know, but if that's the case, then then the only other places we are active as a group have been the two sites I mentioned. Both public web sites to encourage Joe Public to get involved (ha ha) in Government. Now, if by any slim possibility, HMRC are using these lists, no matter what it might say in the small print terms and conditions, that's a bit of a slap in the face to the Government's trustworthiness. And we're dealing with an organisation that is prepared to pay for stolen information to pursue their goals. Lets not forget that AJ also had a load of our email addresses, which could easily identify many of us on the Government website.

[Clownfish]

not much new here, but thought I'd point it out

Bit of a summary and write up from our hosts: Judges mull BN66's retrospective effect :: Contractor UK

And if you don’t know how to already, you can subscribe to news events in google, and be informed of any news results, for something you'd be interested in. eg: "Huitson HMRC", or "HMRC caught with pants down".

One question, I don’t quite understand why the previous result is under "what we do" on the KPMG website. Can anyone perhaps spell it out for me?
KPMG UK - What we do: Personal Tax

Now its just time to sit and wait. Not very optimistic this time. Had a re-read of the initial results from jan today. Kind of reads like "yes, its not clear cut what it would have been if there wasn’t BN66, but its law now, and well, that’s too bad for you."

I reiterate: plan for the worse, then if anything else happens, its an unexpected bonus.

[RichardCranium]

Now I've finished laughing at the threats, I wonder what mischief could be made in finding out how they know?

Did they make the claim under oath? If so, it would be amusing to put in a Freedom of Information request.

They'd have to put in a 'national security' excuse and thereby let imply HMRC uses GCHQ to spy on UK subjects for tax avoidance.

What a mess that would make!

[Squicker]

I'm not so sure. We've underestimated them before, and look where we are, we can take the piss out of them, and God they deserve it, but so far they have worked the system more successfully we have, no matter what we think of them. What I'm wondering is how did they link us? Either they monitor this website religiously, analyse what we say and how we say it and tick it off (possible), or alternatively they have acquired a list from somewhere they are cross-referencing to identify who we are across the forums. Ok, it's a longshot I know, but if that's the case, then then the only other places we are active as a group have been the two sites I mentioned. Both public web sites to encourage Joe Public to get involved (ha ha) in Government. Now, if by any slim possibility, HMRC are using these lists, no matter what it might say in the small print terms and conditions, that's a bit of a slap in the face to the Government's trustworthiness. And we're dealing with an organisation that is prepared to pay for stolen information to pursue their goals. Lets not forget that AJ also had a load of our email addresses, which could easily identify many of us on the Government website.

maybe, maybe not but...who cares? what can they do, bankrupt me? Oh I forgot, their gonna do that anyway so I may as well have laugh at their expense in the interim. Have faced far more frightening prospects than being bankrupt in my time, so couldn't give a rats arse if they've worked out who I am.

[Squicker]

Bit of a summary and write up from our hosts: Judges mull BN66's retrospective effect :: Contractor UK

And if you don’t know how to already, you can subscribe to news events in google, and be informed of any news results, for something you'd be interested in. eg: "Huitson HMRC", or "HMRC caught with pants down".

One question, I don’t quite understand why the previous result is under "what we do" on the KPMG website. Can anyone perhaps spell it out for me?
KPMG UK - What we do: Personal Tax

Now its just time to sit and wait. Not very optimistic this time. Had a re-read of the initial results from jan today. Kind of reads like "yes, its not clear cut what it would have been if there wasn’t BN66, but its law now, and well, that’s too bad for you."

I reiterate: plan for the worse, then if anything else happens, its an unexpected bonus.

"Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice Morgan and Sir Paul Kennedy"

Why do they keep mentioning Kennedy? Did they replace Sullivan with the government anti-civil rights stooge that is Kennedy? Can anyone tell us who the judges actually were?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Apparently, the posts read out this time by Singh were not the same as the ones from January.

It is clear HMRC are trawling this forum for anything which could help their case. Their contention is that we knew there was a risk in using the scheme, so therefore we couldn't have had any legitimate expectations.

Fortunately the Judges weren't having any of this nonsense, and my contact reckons HMRC shot themselves in the foot by making such a big play of this.

HMRC may know who I am but it is disturbing that they claim to know the identity of other forum users.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

"Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice Morgan and Sir Paul Kennedy"

Why do they keep mentioning Kennedy? Did they replace Sullivan with the government anti-civil rights stooge that is Kennedy? Can anyone tell us who the judges actually were?

For the record, the Judges were definitely

LJ Mummery
LJ Sullivan
LJ Tomlinson

[Squicker]

Apparently, the posts read out this time by Singh were not the same as the ones from January.

It is clear HMRC are trawling this forum for anything which could help their case. Their contention is that we knew there was a risk in using the scheme, so therefore we couldn't have had any legitimate expectations.

Fortunately the Judges weren't having any of this nonsense, and my contact reckons HMRC shot themselves in the foot by making such a big play of this.

HMRC may know who I am but it is disturbing that they claim to know the identity of other forum users.

Aye, unless we were using a form of non-repudiated authentication - certs perhaps - then we could be anyone, even an HMRC gibbon posting such stuff up here to strengthen the case. There's no forensic level evidence here and the court was right to dismiss it.

I am actually a cybernetic bovine meme, for example.

Now, even if it were the case that some people were concerned of the risk, so what? Some people are concerned about the risk of opening a bank account, that doesn't mean if the bank goes tits up every SINGLE client is not entitled to compensation because one or two were scared of bank accounts. We all have different risk appetites, I for one was happy with the level of risk as the scheme was explained to me at that time.

Thank you for clarifying the judges. Seems CUK copied the erroneous Telegraph article. Whatever happened to real journalism?