BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[Slobbo]

HMRC could have even pretended to be one of us to post incriminating evidence so they could read it out in court.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Risk

When I joined the scheme of course I was aware there was a possibility it could be challenged. HMRC wouldn't be doing their jobs if they didn't make enquiries.

However, challenging it through the normal legal channels is one thing, coming along 7 years later and bringing in retrospective legislation is an entirely different kettle of fish.

How on earth could I have possibly anticipated this?

In the letters HMRC sent me they never once mentioned anything about 1987 or Padmore. Nor did they ever even give the slightest hint of possible retrospective measures.

On the contrary, in 2007 they committed (in writing) to taking test cases to the Special Commissioners and asked if I agreed to be bound by the outcome.

That was my legitimate expectation which the legislation has denied me.

NOW READ THAT OUT IN COURT

[Fireship]

My contact said that Singh's performance today was very shaky.

Once again, Singh resorted to reading out posts off this forum.

LJ Mummery commented that they couldn't know who these people are or if they even exist. After conferring with HMRC, Singh said they know who we all are. Fortunately, the Judge was having none of this and dismissed it.

Apparently, Elvin gave an excellent closing statement, as did the QC representing PwC.

Overall, it was a very good day and the hearing ended on a high note for us.

For HMRC / Singh to stand in a court of law and state they “know who we all are” is a blatant lie.

Firstly not all posters are connected to MP in any way hence aren’t on HMRC’s radar, how would they know who these people are??

Secondly it would be impossible to identify all users of the forum unless admin was handed a court order to provide details, even then a user would’ve had to provide sufficient details about themselves to make a positive identification possible. Could they trace your IP address, yes they could but that would require another court order for ISP’s to hand over the details. Even then they wouldn’t necessarily yield anything – they can trace certain IP’s as much as they like, the trail will go very cold when it ends with a multi-tiered NAT’d solution in a country that doesn’t give a stuff about the UK authorities!

So basically, without a monumental amount of time and effort HMRC would never be able to identify us, even then it would be impossible to identify all of us!!

Don’t get me wrong, I have no wish or need to conceal my identity, it’s just clear to me that this forum is full of users who know a lot more about this stuff than they do – most of us do this for a living!!! And that being the case it’s clear to me that to stand up in court and state they “know who we all are” is a lie! Fact! Had it not been they would’ve submitted evidence the to the contrary and been allowed to continue.

Where am I going with this? Well to me it’s clear that HMRC have lied in court and that being the case:

1) Lying in court / perjury is illegal, they should throw the book at them.
2) These clowns are willing to lie in court which shows the kind of people we are dealing with! I only hope the judges recognise their lack of moral fortitude and the resulting manner in which we have been treated!

[Vallah]

When I joined the scheme of course I was aware there was a possibility it could be challenged. HMRC wouldn't be doing their jobs if they didn't make enquiries.

However, challenging it through the normal legal channels is one thing, coming along 7 years later and bringing in retrospective legislation is an entirely different kettle of fish.

How on earth could I have possibly anticipated this?

In the letters HMRC sent me they never once mentioned anything about 1987 or Padmore. Nor did they ever even give the slightest hint of possible retrospective measures.

On the contrary, in 2007 they committed (in writing) to taking test cases to the Special Commissioners and asked if I agreed to be bound by the outcome.

That was my legitimate expectation which the legislation has denied me.

NOW READ THAT OUT IN COURT

Precisely DR.

In my admittedly simplistic view, I see it like this.

People don't like paying tax, and so will always seek ways to avoid it. This is entirely legal and is seen as a basic right by the US Supreme Court.

HMRC don't like people avoiding tax, and will try to close loopholes to prevent them from doing so. Again, this is entirely reasonable, as it's their job.

What ISN'T alright is for them to be bad at their jobs, and to take years to change the law to close a loophole, and then pretend that the new law is something they had told people they had planned to do all along.

The authorities wouldn't get away with applying changes to laws retrospectively in any other walk of life, so just because this is tax shouldn't make any difference.

If they changed the speed limit on the M6 to 40mph, and tried to ban people for doing 70mph 6 years ago, it'd be laughed out of court. It may seem like a ridiculous example, but I can't see that the fundamental issue is any different.

[Vallah]

For HMRC / Singh to stand in a court of law and state they “know who we all are” is a blatant lie.

Firstly not all posters are connected to MP in any way hence aren’t on HMRC’s radar, how would they know who these people are??

Secondly it would be impossible to identify all users of the forum unless admin was handed a court order to provide details, even then a user would’ve had to provide sufficient details about themselves to make a positive identification possible. Could they trace your IP address, yes they could but that would require another court order for ISP’s to hand over the details. Even then they wouldn’t necessarily yield anything – they can trace certain IP’s as much as they like, the trail will go very cold when it ends with a multi-tiered NAT’d solution in a country that doesn’t give a stuff about the UK authorities!

So basically, without a monumental amount of time and effort HMRC would never be able to identify us, even then it would be impossible to identify all of us!!

Don’t get me wrong, I have no wish or need to conceal my identity, it’s just clear to me that this forum is full of users who know a lot more about this stuff than they do – most of us do this for a living!!! And that being the case it’s clear to me that to stand up in court and state they “know who we all are” is a lie! Fact! Had it not been they would’ve submitted evidence the to the contrary and been allowed to continue.

Where am I going with this? Well to me it’s clear that HMRC have lied in court and that being the case:

1) Lying in court / perjury is illegal, they should throw the book at them.
2) These clowns are willing to lie in court which shows the kind of people we are dealing with! I only hope the judges recognise their lack of moral fortitude and the resulting manner in which we have been treated!

A very interesting post, is this something that could be developed further? As somebody said above, would a FOI request be a first step?

[Morlock]

Once again, Singh resorted to reading out posts off this forum.

Is that the best they can do? Unless Mr Huitson himself has been posting on here, I don't see that ANYTHING written on this forum can be admissible as evidence in the case at hand, namely "Huitson vs HRMC". What a load of nonsense!

After conferring with HMRC, Singh said they know who we all are.

What? HMRC would have a hard, if not impossible, time proving a trail of evidence against even one single post on this forum. And even if they found out the identity of an account owner, it doesn't follow that it's always that individual who's logged in. So any forum-based evidence could never be anything other than circumstantial. Anyway, it's still not relevant - see previous point.
(P.S. And if that assertion is supposed to be a scare tactic by HMRC, it's a pretty lame one. Where did they get it from, an old Bob Hoskins film?)

Overall, it was a very good day and the hearing ended on a high note for us.

Hmmm. I seem to recall that something like that happened in the lower court. Let's not get our hopes up.

[Donnie Darko]

HMRC wrote to me very early on warning that they would bring in retrospective legislation.





























They wish!!!

[Squicker]

HMRC wrote to me very early on warning that they would bring in retrospective legislation.They wish!!!

HMRC wrote me today telling me that they had in fact written to me in 1981 telling me that they were going to introduce retrospective legislation.

[srhcompcon]

HMRC wrote me today telling me that they had in fact written to me in 1981 telling me that they were going to introduce retrospective legislation.

i checked with my dad, they warned him this would happen before I was born

[SantaClaus]

If HMRC, Hartnett and Brannigan are reading this, I'll tell you what I'm gonna do, what I'm REALLY gonna do...
























I'm gonna zigga zagga, zigga zagga
(in the words of the Spice Girls).