BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[DonkeyRhubarb]

For instance, they would have known that retrospective legislation was a distinct possibility, for the simple reason that it had happened before. If they did not specifically advise that there was a clear risk of retrospective legislation - based upon the plain fact of its previous occurrence

Is this the previous occurrence to which you refer?

UNITED KINGDOM MEMBERS OF PARTNERSHIPS CONTROLLED ABROAD (Hansard, 15 July 1987)

If so then you have fallen for the HMRC/Labour Government spin.

[bananarepublic]

Thanks to Montpelier

For all this talk about what MP have or haven't done we should give them credit for sticking with us up to this point. I don't think any reasonable person could have envisaged how this would turn out.

As for the judgement, it seems to me that if a retrospective law change cannot make it to the SC then what is the point of it being there? It feels like the law (and the SC) is only there to support scumbags like Qatada and his ilk.

Doesn't this strengthen our submission to the ECHR though, the fact that the SC refuses to hear our case?

[cojak]

Actually it was my mistake. You were never in a position to sue HMRC of course, that was your problem. Your only alternatives have been to sue parliament (let's face it, you weren't likely to win that one) or Montpelier (who may or may not be providing you with beneficial advice - see a lawyer first).

Do you have any direct involvement with this case NorthernSoul. Do you stand to lose any money on the outcome?

[reckless]

For all this talk about what MP have or haven't done we should give them credit for sticking with us up to this point. I don't think any reasonable person could have envisaged how this would turn out.

As for the judgement, it seems to me that if a retrospective law change cannot make it to the SC then what is the point of it being there? It feels like the law (and the SC) is only there to support scumbags like Qatada and his ilk.

Doesn't this strengthen our submission to the ECHR though, the fact that the SC refuses to hear our case?

That is a very good point. If so, then the ball will be well and truely kicked into the long grass; assuming HMRC honour they word not to enforce collections while the legal challenge is still ongoing. Given their record to date, that unfortunately does not fill me with inspiration.

[bananarepublic]

PS - All is not lost!

If there is some consolation in this
1) Those like me who have been under investigation since 2003 and haven't had any discovery have had plenty of time to plan for this.
2) Those who have been hit with discovery notices have a very strong case for them to be set aside. Obviously if you didn't think you had to plan for this and got hit with a massive tax and interest bill your stress must be considerably higher right now.
3) I still have my wits, my health, my family and considerable earning power. Its a blow but it hasn't killed me (yet) so hopefully has made me a stronger person.

For those which 1, 2, or 3 doesn't apply you truely have my sympathy.

[ALMAC]

BAD WEEK

This week cannot get any worse as I am also a Rangers supporter.

Reaching for the anti-depressants as we speak.

[bananarepublic]

This week cannot get any worse as I am also a Rangers supporter.

Reaching for the anti-depressants as we speak.

Go and do something bad. At least you can then feel like you've deserved this.

[northernSoul]

Is this the previous occurrence to which you refer?

UNITED KINGDOM MEMBERS OF PARTNERSHIPS CONTROLLED ABROAD (Hansard, 15 July 1987)

If so then you have fallen for the HMRC/Labour Government spin.

My opinion doesn't matter. I was referring to the previous occurences of retrospective legislation outlined by all the judges in this case so far. You may know more about the law than all the HHJs in the English legal system, in which case you should contact them as soon as possible to make clear their mistakes, and their gullibility in the face of institutional spin.

[SantaClaus]

Agreed. No need to apologise DR, you've done a great job for us all.

MP will handle the tribunals for us. There are different angles depending on individual circumstances, late discovery enquiries, missing closure notices etc.

Presumably now that the word retrospective has been used and the original wording of "clarification" has been ignored by the courts, we should have a very good argument to avoid the interest bill. Surely it would be worth getting on to our members of parliament to complain about retrospective interest on retrospective tax bills ?

I think that is a very good point.

Now that HMRC and the courts have finally agreed this is retrospection, why on earth should we pay interest?

Rather than writing letters, we should be beating down the door at our MP's surgeries. Once I've got my paperwork together and the brown envelope, that's exactly what I will be doing.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

My opinion doesn't matter.

I agree.