BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[BrilloPad]

Still not got my letter - can anyone advise what it says, please?

Basically repeat of November letter - but adds that we have now lost appeal to supreme court and HMRC propose to move ahead with collection. And we should settle now.

Ignore it - it is what Mr Gittins of Montpelier says that will count. HMRC are not home and dry yet.

[Dieselpower]

Basically repeat of November letter - but adds that we have now lost appeal to supreme court and HMRC propose to move ahead with collection. And we should settle now.

Ignore it - it is what Mr Gittins of Montpelier says that will count. HMRC are not home and dry yet.

Cheers brillo - like some others I don't even know how much they think I owe them, not that I can pay anyway. I look fwd to WG's missive next week.

[SantaClaus]

.....

Ignore it - it is what Mr Gittins of Montpelier says that will count. HMRC are not home and dry yet.

Well, it better be good, because Montpelier's silence has been deafening!

[BrilloPad]

Well, it better be good, because Montpelier's silence has been deafening!

I know what you mean. But given the choice I would rather they took their time and got it right. I suspect its going to get tougher from here - but like the rest I intend to fight every step of the way.

[funjim]

hurts my head

i sit here and read this a couple of times a day .. at least .. on the odd occasion i take the time to write a few words... the bit that gets me every time.. and moreover every time we get the results from a legal juncture...when i sit and watch the emotion/anger/frustration that is clear from people who have different viewpoints...even if in similar situations is that this situation has been born out of uncertainty ...which is still evident... how the hell can we be .. in my case 8 years down the line ... still not be quite sure where this will end... people entered this cos of ir35.. its uncertainty .. and did what they thought was certain .. even if perceived as wrong in some eyes.

i read earlier one poster doesn't even know how much he owes.. and so how much interest has stacked up etc.. we see more and more the clarification being described by the courts as retro amendment... this is even uncertain..

this hurts my head.. but just feels wrong.. in so many ways... for me.. i hold a hope that certainty will arrive some day soon.. hopefully in a manner which evidences the lies and crap thats gone on.. and we can get back on with our lives

fj

[SantaClaus]

I know what you mean. But given the choice I would rather they took their time and got it right. I suspect its going to get tougher from here - but like the rest I intend to fight every step of the way.

I'll keep fighting even if I have to pay back HMRC first. And I will make sure my children continue the fight for their rightful inheritance.

I think there will be a lot of people who aren't just going to lie down and take it.

[Dieselpower]

Tribunals

HM Revenue & Customs: Appeals and tribunals - an overview for agents and advisers

Above link leads to various pages re tribunal procedures - quite interesting. If one is still unhappy with decision with upper T then one can apply for a "Judicial Review", which HMRC states as being "very costly"(!)

This means the whole process could drag on for another 6-12 months. Also the Tribunal is completely independent of HMRC. But then again, so is the SC supposedly.

[OnYourBikeGB]

I'll keep fighting even if I have to pay back HMRC first. And I will make sure my children continue the fight for their rightful inheritance.

I think there will be a lot of people who aren't just going to lie down and take it.

Well said. They've caused me a huge amount of stress and hassle, but I'm not giving into them or their jackboots. They want it, they earn it. And I'll fight for it back.

[SantaClaus]

HM Revenue & Customs: Appeals and tribunals - an overview for agents and advisers

Above link leads to various pages re tribunal procedures - quite interesting. If one is still unhappy with decision with upper T then one can apply for a "Judicial Review", which HMRC states as being "very costly"(!)

This means the whole process could drag on for another 6-12 months. Also the Tribunal is completely independent of HMRC. But then again, so is the SC supposedly.

Interesting link DieselPower. Is this a different Judicial Review to the one that has already taken place?

So many of these apply, I wouldnt know where to start:

"A customer may seek judicial review if they believe that an HMRC officer is not carrying out, or is delaying in carrying out their duties, has assumed powers to which they were not entitled or did not properly exercise their discretion, for example by refusing to apply an Extra-Statutory Concession."

Erm, delaying by 7 years...yes, tick!

"Judicial review may also look at HMRC decisions where the dispute is not about whether the decision is technically correct but where a customer claims that they were misdirected and in consequence suffered disadvantage, for example that a return is wrong because they relied on incorrect advice received from HMRC."

Too many points to write down here, but think "entrapment"...tick!

"Judicial review may also consider cases where the customer believes that an HMRC officer has not listened properly to their representations or has acted in a way that appears to be unfair."

Yep, that applies... tick!

In summary, HMRC's guidance and a false sense of "fairness" makes a mockery of their own practices.

[caliban]

The difficulty with retrospectivity is that it creates paradox

"Treated as always having had effect" may be the most powerful words any legislative body can utter; but they are an open door to the Twilight Zone.

From 21 July 2008 the Finance Act (No.2) 1987 is and always has been the rigorous expression of parliamentary will that it was hoped to be. There is no provision or absence of provision that would confer upon the beneficiaries of a trust no matter how that trust, it's trustees, or a partnership of those trustees, was structured a relief from UK tax under double taxation agreements. It is certain that no scheme would subsequently be conceived to exploit that aspect of the legislation, and that there would be no subscribers to a scheme not conceived. That is the reality if one is not to suffer the paradox. Unfortunately actions cannot be undone for events to unfold differently when the historical context is rewritten. So how to reconcile the consequences of this intellectual indulgence?

In a curious corollary while placing an unexpected obligation on the taxpayer retrospectivity places a no less significant obligation on the tax collector. It may be argued that an excessive delay in bringing about a conclusion to an investigation given the legal clarity that the matter has enjoyed since 1987 is not without implication for sums sought in interest and other liabilities that accrue over time.

There is an absurdity here that diminishes those who would not acknowledge it. It is to be hoped that the matter is taken to Europe where free of the distractions that often interfere with national instruments it receives the dignity of attention it deserves.