BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Would you mind if I were to ask why?

It's just that, over here, we're running out of footholds. We've lost the principle of cause & effect. Semantic precision has been thrown out with the garbage. We're rapidly forming the impression that HMRC are able to say and do whatever they damn well want. With impunity!

Forget HMRC. They may be named as the respondent in the case but it is the legislature (Parliament) which is "on trial".

The claimant alleges that primary legislation, enacted by Parliament, is in breach of Parliament's own Human Rights Act. There can be no doubting how serious that is.

The case raises important matters of principle. It could also establish a precedent for further legislation. It has all the hallmarks of a landmark case defining case law in this area.

If the Supreme Court refuses permission then they know it's too important for it to rest there, and it will end up in Strasbourg. That would be very embarassing for the highest court in the land given it's pivotal role in upholding the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Supreme Court and Europe - The Supreme Court

IMO, they will grant permission for exactly the same reason as the Court of Appeal did, namely that it is overwhelmingly in the public interest for the case to be heard.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

The expectation of this appeal being different gives further credence to Samuel Johnson's "triumph of hope over experience" remark.
How many frankly laughable judgements will it take until one admits that the courts are part of the overall governmental protection racket and that justice is something people keep wanting to believe is true, but for which there is scant evidence (like honest politicians).

What expectation? I have none. But what's the alternative? Roll over and do nothing?

The court is not on your side. You do not appoint judges, nor enoble them, nor control inquiry appointments. Forget that avenue; it is going nowhere, as will appealing to any oversight committees or standards bodies. Its all a sham to make you think there is some restraint on their behaviour. A letter to Santa Claus would be more effective.

Maybe you're right but I'd rather have a roll of the dice in the Supreme Court than nothing.

There is only one option and that is to write it off and be glad you got away with your liberty intact this time. I for one am off as soon as I can manage it, and HMRC and the govt will have no one to blame but themselves when there are no more productive individuals left to leech off.

I take my hat off to you for making contingency plans. As you say, it would serve them right if more did the same.

However, for those of us who can't or don't want to quit the country, the courts are all we've got.

[ready_to_leave]

DR - you have been nothing but a star through this whole process and I do think a roll of the dice is never a waste. But I am clear that it is no more than that and talk of objectivity and ombudsmen is nothing but wish fulfilment giving hope where I see none.

I once held onto the notion of the judges being upholders of the law, as perhaps I used to hold onto the notion of another gentleman in a red robe turning up at the right time of year, but a time must come to realise the world for what it is. If 30 judges were appointed to the case I cannot see a different outcome in the current establishment structure.

Both myself and my wife are desperate to leave this culture of state persecution and I have just about got rid of most my uk assets. I suppose I am also in the fortunate position of having a CTD that covers most of my liability, even though the cost of having to liquidate all my ISA holdings and investments to purchase the CTD has been very painful and set back my own life plans by more years than I care to think about (and I am not that young).

For those that think themselves tied to the uk with children or property I urge you all to think again. The UK is going nowhere but down the pan and in the coming years the state is going to need more and more of your earnings and assets (think property taxes, pension rule changes, etc). BN66 is just a taste of things to come.

What expectation? I have none. But what's the alternative? Roll over and do nothing?



Maybe you're right but I'd rather have a roll of the dice in the Supreme Court than nothing.



I take my hat off to you for making contingency plans. As you say, it would serve them right if more did the same.

However, for those of us who can't or don't want to quit the country, the courts are all we've got.

[BolshieBastard]

The expectation of this appeal being different gives further credence to Samuel Johnson's "triumph of hope over experience" remark.
How many frankly laughable judgements will it take until one admits that the courts are part of the overall governmental protection racket and that justice is something people keep wanting to believe is true, but for which there is scant evidence (like honest politicians).

Politicians protect their own and government departments protect their own. You are either part of the state/corporate machine or you are one of the little people. We are not the in-group, we are the out group and we can be treated anyway they d**n well please. Look at the Parliamentary committee hearing for HMRC. It was obviously an incompetent and deceitful cover up and what really happened to anyone involved. NOTHING. A bit of a pantomime telling off from the grumpy headmistress. Accountability? Lets get real here.

Hartnett gets a massive payoff, a big pension and all the other civil servants get back to screwing the rest of the country, with nary a second thought.

You are a cash cow to be milked by the state and that is all that you need to know. Fines for mistakes, fines for not complying with rules that are never clear, ever growing regulations that even full time tax lawyers and accountants are unsure of (but you can be fined or prosecuted over), failure to see legislation as anything other than the will of the state, the state intermediating all your social interactions, time travel legislative powers. That is our present situation and the future holds a whole lot more of the same.

The court is not on your side. You do not appoint judges, nor enoble them, nor control inquiry appointments. Forget that avenue; it is going nowhere, as will appealing to any oversight committees or standards bodies. Its all a sham to make you think there is some restraint on their behaviour. A letter to Santa Claus would be more effective.

There is only one option and that is to write it off and be glad you got away with your liberty intact this time. I for one am off as soon as I can manage it, and HMRC and the govt will have no one to blame but themselves when there are no more productive individuals left to leech off.

Pretty much spot on there I'd say!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

DR - you have been nothing but a star through this whole process and I do think a roll of the dice is never a waste. But I am clear that it is no more than that and talk of objectivity and ombudsmen is nothing but wish fulfilment giving hope where I see none.

I am confident that we will get to the Supreme Court. If nothing else this buys another year for contingency planning.

For some, the fact that this has dragged on for 4 years has been nothing but shear frustration.

For others it has been a life line, and provided time to make alternative arrangements.

For those that think themselves tied to the uk with children or property I urge you all to think again.

There are more people thinking than you might think. In fact, quite a lot of people have already done the thinking part.

[phileds]

Timing would be key.

Because of sub judice I don't think the Ombudsman could consider a complaint until the legal case has run its course. This may also be an issue if any appeals are being heard in the tax courts.

Remember, when a complaint is referred to the Ombudsman one of the first things they will do is notify the respondent (HMRC). All HMRC would have to do is cite sub judice and that would kill it stone dead.

After exhausting the HMRC complaints procedure, I suspect there is probably a time limit for complaining to the Ombudsman.

This would be the same Ombudsman who ruled a near-unprecedented twice that the UK Govt was at fault for the Equitable Life debacle, that compensation should be paid ... and Parliament said "**** Off"?? Dream On

And the beauty of it is, the longer it drags on, the more EL pensioners die, and the lower the (possible) compensation. This, from MPs who enjoy the best pensions in the country.

[OnYourBikeGB]

What expectation? I have none. But what's the alternative? Roll over and do nothing?



Maybe you're right but I'd rather have a roll of the dice in the Supreme Court than nothing.



I take my hat off to you for making contingency plans. As you say, it would serve them right if more did the same.

However, for those of us who can't or don't want to quit the country, the courts are all we've got.

Hitting he nail perfectly on the head. I see little to gain in not going he distance. I understand many people would just like this to be behind us, me too, but I would always wonder if I threw away a last chance.

This experience has been an education. Hartnett in the pockets of big business, state sponsored tax avoidance schemes to attract the ultra-rich while the pensioners in our own country get screwed over when Hector messes up his calculations. Some of whom put their lives on the line in the last world war, never mind those troops being left in appalling mental and physical condition on the scrap heap with no support now. Governmental deregulation of banks, then bail them out with national reserves, allowing them to still award themselves multi-million pound bonuses while OAPs go without heat and Hartnett quaffes down 5 course meals courtesy of the bigget tax avoiders of all. MPs claim unfairness when they were 'only following the rules' on expenses, but no backdated interest payments, no threats to seize their property. Truth is this is a pretty rotten country, and what we see as injustice on our part is pretty much par for the course.

For me it's not just about fairness, I'm just sick of being screwed over, probably will be again, but they're going to have to work for it.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

For me it's not just about fairness, I'm just sick of being screwed over, probably will be again, but they're going to have to work for it.

Too right.

[bve534]

HMRC to appeal

Too right.

Some of this looks familiar - pity the judiciary on our case didnt think HMRC had a common law duty to act fairly to avoid fines (read interest) piling up !!

HMRC to appeal HOK penalty decision
Posted by John Stokdyk PM | on Thu, 05/01/2012 - 11:24 2073 HMRC has confirmed that it is preparing an appeal against the first tier tax tribunal decision in HOK v HMRC, in which the judge criticised the department for unfairness and using the penalty system as a “cash generating scheme”.

HOK Ltd v HMRC [2011] UKFTT 433 (TC01286) is one of several cases last year in which tribunal judge Geraint Jones QC overturned late P35 filing penalties because HMRC waited several months before sending out notices. The HMD Response decision, detailed in AccountingWEB’s Reasonable Excuse scorecard, includes an identical conclusion from the judge: “In our judgement, the appellant is entitled to rely upon the common law duty of a public body to act fairly not just in its decision-making process but also in administering its statutory powers. We are in no doubt that such a body does not act fairly where it deliberately desists from sending a penalty notice, for four months or more, knowing that the effect will be to impose a minimum penalty of £500 upon somebody whose sin may be no more than oversight or forgetfulness.”

As part of the ruling, the judge commented that it would be a simple matter for HMRC to program its computers to send out P35 penalty notices in May rather than September to avoid the fines piling up as they did in the HOK case.

This view - and the string of similar decisions from Jones and other tribunal judges - was not popular with HMRC, which described the arguments as “out of kilter” with the law.

“It’s no secret that we are preparing an appeal and the HOK decision was the most appropriate case,” an HMRC spokesman told AccountingWEB.

ICAS tax director Derek Allen highlighted the recent decisions in Working Together issue 46 and urged HMRC to adopt a process that respects the tribunals’ stance to ensure taxpayers’ human rights are protected.

[BrilloPad]

penalty of £500 upon somebody whose sin may be no more than oversight or forgetfulness.”

This is a sin to HMRC. They expect to be able to do what they want - but expect us to be perfect.