BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[SantaClaus]

if you look at the top of the page you will see the voting count on a request that I set up for a PR campaign, the very thing you say is lacking. Since 31 people have now said they support the campaign then for £1,000 each from those 31 people we can buy a one page advert spread in the business section of a broadsheet paper for one day.

That one page could allow us in very bold print to explain what this case really means to the readers of that business section. It might achieve nothing but it would be the best £1000 I have ever spent in my life.!!

There's 3000 people affected by this. This thread alone has had 170,803 views. I'm sure the previous thread reached something ridiculous like half a million.
If everyone who silently reads this forum and is affected by BN66 gave only £10, we would have enough cash for an advert.

Then again ... pigs might fly

We can always start panicking when the Supreme Court judgement is read out, I suppose.

[seadog]

There's 3000 people affected by this. This thread alone has had 170,803 views. I'm sure the previous thread reached something ridiculous like half a million.
If everyone who silently reads this forum and is affected by BN66 gave only £10, we would have enough cash for an advert.

Then again ... pigs might fly

We can always start panicking when the Supreme Court judgement is read out, I suppose.

It will be too late to start when the SC judgment is made. If we are going to do anything it needs to be prepared well in advance of the decision.

Following Brannigans newsletter we now know that HMRC plan to tke test cases to the tribunal based on S58 and then try to collect. Whether S58 that applies to all those cases is still debateable.

They don't seem to have acknowleged that the case will almost certinly go to ECHR. KPMG have already made an application to ECHR over 2 years ago and the case has still not been heard.

Clearly this matter has a long way to go.

How much quicker cheaper and more responsible would it have been if HMRC followed the usual protocol and tried to take the cases to the tax tribunal before trying to impose retropsective legistation by misleading parliament to cover up their own mismanagement and 7 years delay.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

With regard to tax tribunals there is something I'm not sure about.

Can we demand that our appeals be heard individually at a tribunal or can HMRC force us to be bound by test cases?

Although many of us are in similar situations there are differences.

Personally I would not be very happy for my appeal to be decided on the basis of some other taxpayer.

[prozak]

There's 3000 people affected by this. This thread alone has had 170,803 views. I'm sure the previous thread reached something ridiculous like half a million.
If everyone who silently reads this forum and is affected by BN66 gave only £10, we would have enough cash for an advert.

Then again ... pigs might fly

We can always start panicking when the Supreme Court judgement is read out, I suppose.

I think you'd be better hiring a PR agency.

An ad will be ignored.

But with a good PR agency you can get articles written and with much more detail.

However, I wouldn't hope for a load of support from your average brit earning 30k. They are going to see this as illegal greedy tax evasion (if if it isn't)

[bve534]

PR campaign and full page advert

I think you'd be better hiring a PR agency.

An ad will be ignored.

But with a good PR agency you can get articles written and with much more detail.

However, I wouldn't hope for a load of support from your average brit earning 30k. They are going to see this as illegal greedy tax evasion (if if it isn't)

Spot on the plan - use the PR company for writing the advert and for contacting the right people. If there are 3000 in the scheme then £10 each would pay for an advert but £1,000 each would give us a proper fighting fund. Lets face it we are being stitched up by the establishment because we are plebs who have succeeded in fairly and lawfully beating the system and that is simply not allowed. To defeat us they have had to retrospectively change the law and ignore all accepted House of Commons guidance and doctrine on the concept of retrospective taxation but they have no problem with that because this is personal. I think the guilty decision was reached a long time ago (in fact listening to Parker at the High Court I knew it was) and I thought the recent HMRC newsletter almost gave the game away. I received similar treatment as I fought for Equitable Life compensation. Lets go down with all guns blazing and not meekly accept our fate.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Further clarification

There seems to be a lot of confusion about enquiries and closure notices, so let me try and clarify this.

Enquiry

An enquiry is a letter saying they are opening enquiries into your tax return. It should refer to Section 9a TMA 1970, although it might also mention Code of Practice 8.

Closure Notice

A Closure Notice is the thing that Montp appealed on your behalf. It should refer to Section 28A(1) & (2) TMA 1970, and it will detail the amendments they have made to your return and tell you your right of appeal.

What to look for

HMRC should have opened an enquiry within 12 months of the date a return was filed. If the enquiry was outside this window then this will be challenged by Montp at a tax tribunal at the end of the current legal process.

If a CN was issued and there had been no prior enquiry whatsoever then HMRC have already conceded with one person that this is not valid and the CN was withdrawn. The same would apply if they opened an enquiry after the CN.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

If in doubt just send this letter:

HMRC letter.rtf

Put the onus on HMRC to prove that they opened enquiries into all your returns before issuing closure notices.

And don't let them off the hook. Be persistent.

One guy has already saved himself £40k.

[BolshieBastard]

With regard to tax tribunals there is something I'm not sure about.

Can we demand that our appeals be heard individually at a tribunal or can HMRC force us to be bound by test cases?

Although many of us are in similar situations there are differences.

Personally I would not be very happy for my appeal to be decided on the basis of some other taxpayer.

When I was dealing with benefit appeals, the DHSS \ DWP the process was appeal to an adjudication officer, appeal to a tribunal then appeal to a social Security Commissioner. The SSC was the highest and final level of adjudication (outside the High Court etc). They only needed one 'test case' decided by a Social Security Commissioner to set a point of law. The decision of the SSC could be used in all similar claim appeals by the Dept to uphold decisions to disallow the benefit claims.

I presume the appeal process HMRC use with the tax commissioner will be the same. They will take a couple of cases that test each claim scenario to a tax tribunal. If they dont get a decison their way, they'll go to a Tax Commissioner. If they get a decision in their favour by the TC, they could then apply the Tax Commissioner's decision to all similar tax cases (not just ours in the future too) so they dont have to take every one of us to a tax tribunal first.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

so they dont have to take every one of us to a tax tribunal first.

I can see that's the way HMRC would want it to go.

The question is can we demand individual hearings at a tribunal?

[ASB]

The question is can we demand individual hearings at a tribunal?

Yes. If you cannot agree you have the right to appeal to the general or special commissioners.

HM Revenue & Customs: How to appeal against an HMRC decision - direct tax

Decisions related to other taxpayers do not bind any other taxpayer.