BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[silver_lining]

One other thing to stress, that if the original case given to us by HMRC was correct, that we were in the wrong, then we would have exited the scheme and paid what was due at that point. It's entrapment because the advice they offered caused us, even encouraged us, to stay in the scheme. It is not entrapment if their action made no difference, i.e. if we would have stayed in regardless. Entrapment is also as far as I know, only applicable in a criminal case, but their motives were the same.

I like everyone else on here is hoping someone has a genius angle to change course....but for me it has to be legal and complex.

I feel the time to cross examine motives and fairness amongst many other themes, was during parliamentary debate, but alas it got through. .... after that it became and A1P1 debate, which as we all know was an up hill battle......

I was a little taken back at the SCs view .... but of course we got out of context sound bytes.... so who knows the full response, DR maybe you have more insight?

I do feel the MPs thing is pointless, as they are arguably worse than HMRC - just want to be on the side thats 'winning'.

So our.... or at least my hope is with the legal eagles of MP/PWC and whomever else....can some up with something.....

I can't help but think there is some legal angle/ loophole/ technicality that is there to shove it up HMRCs jacksy.... but we need a clever cloggs to weed it out..... alternatively someone clever enough and paid enough to weed it out......... reverse engineering works well sometimes... can we get the Tax genius that HMRC used who came up with the retrospective idea as I bet he also considered the risks that would undermine it or more importantly knew them......

[travellingknob]

Why on earth is everyone worried about bankruptcy ? Tax is the only thing that does not get wiped out when your bankrupt. HMRC will obviously carry on collecting the outstanding tax a rate you can afford to pay for all infinity. However, they are extremy unlikely to make anyone bankrupt unless you just arent playing ball. They will always come to a deal over payment before taking such drastic action.

Now on the subject of interest I shall be appealing that the law did not get changed until 2008 and whilst retrospective tax then arose, it did not actually become due until Jan 2009. The interest charge can thus only start accruing from 2009 not from 2001/2

[Dieselpower]

Got my letter

Got my letter too today - Given his previous newsletter stating that they intended to do some test cases thru tribunals etc, I fail to see how he now suddenly jumps to saying "Pay up now" - again is this the sort of behaviour one would expect from an HMRC Officer, in the context of a long running dispute that he previously accepted wasn't over because of the intended tribunal matters? Is this not plain old bullying? How will an indpendent tribunal see this - its not as if we to have been equally aggressive by sending Mr Brannigan letters saying "we ain't paying, catch us if you can" - we have generally been quiet and tacit, allowing MP to lead the case foreward in a professional manner, devoid of any emotion.

He then says, if you can't pay it all, then pay what you can (entrapment again?) - again does this reflect their published advice on their website? No it does not. What is this man up to exactly? He is taking it too personally, and whilst we are all quite demonstrably rather wound up about the clear injustice, we have thus far behaved impeccably.

It is this sort of thing that judges do not like - and I have been before loads. (Civil not criminal).

I also question whether we should all be collectively using one firm to potentially negotiate/argue our cases (such as the sole trader ex Inspector mentioned a few posts ago) but clearly we should see what MP say, and also consider whether using a sole trader is the right thing to do, or all use a major accounting firm like KPMG who will have very experienced ex HMRC peope in house, excellent contacts, and who also are already acutely aware of the general issue already. Many people using the same firm would obviously reduce our costs - like a class action, but acting for us individually depending on our specific circumstances.

[BrilloPad]

Yawn.... Remember the appeals aren't lifted til its been thru the tax courts and until thsts happened nothing is payable. Are some of you either:

1) thick
2) ignoring this
3) assuming that will not yield a preferable outcome

4) Some are weak minded and are not under control of the dark side of the force. I shall help those affected now. Listen to my voice. These are not the droids you are looking for. You can go about your business. Do not pay HMRC a penny until MP say so - if you can get a ctd then get one.

[moira under the stairs]

Got my letter too today - Given his previous newsletter stating that they intended to do some test cases thru tribunals etc, I fail to see how he now suddenly jumps to saying "Pay up now" - again is this the sort of behaviour one would expect from an HMRC Officer, in the context of a long running dispute that he previously accepted wasn't over because of the intended tribunal matters? Is this not plain old bullying? How will an indpendent tribunal see this - its not as if we to have been equally aggressive by sending Mr Brannigan letters saying "we ain't paying, catch us if you can" - we have generally been quiet and tacit, allowing MP to lead the case foreward in a professional manner, devoid of any emotion.

He then says, if you can't pay it all, then pay what you can (entrapment again?) - again does this reflect their published advice on their website? No it does not. What is this man up to exactly? He is taking it too personally, and whilst we are all quite demonstrably rather wound up about the clear injustice, we have thus far behaved impeccably.

It is this sort of thing that judges do not like - and I have been before loads. (Civil not criminal).

..Hmm at the end of the letter there were a few additional names to contact... maybe Mr B is dragging others in to spread the blame when the cr4p finally hits his desk ...

[smalldog]

id be fascinated to know what PWC's next move is, if they arent colluding with MP of course.

[SJack]

Why on earth is everyone worried about bankruptcy ? Tax is the only thing that does not get wiped out when your bankrupt. HMRC will obviously carry on collecting the outstanding tax a rate you can afford to pay for all infinity.

Is the above correct?

From Tax Debt - Bankruptcy

Tax after bankruptcy
As a general rule, the tax due for all tax years up to and including the tax year in which you are made bankrupt will be due from your Trustee - from the money he is able to raise - and not from you personally.

I'm one of those who has no assets and no current income. What can I expect to happen?

[swede]

Many people using the same firm would obviously reduce our costs - like a class action, but acting for us individually depending on our specific circumstances.

Agreed, however we should be wary of putting all our eggs in one basket too. If there multiple test tribunals, does it make sense to use the same arguments at each one? I personally dont know how it works... not sure anyone does yet.

Would one of them be Huitson? (poor bloke needs a break if you ask me!)

[Lala]

One other thing to stress, that if the original case given to us by HMRC was correct, that we were in the wrong, then we would have exited the scheme and paid what was due at that point. It's entrapment because the advice they offered caused us, even encouraged us, to stay in the scheme. It is not entrapment if their action made no difference, i.e. if we would have stayed in regardless. Entrapment is also as far as I know, only applicable in a criminal case, but their motives were the same.

Hi

He is my MP, I can write to him. Would appreciate any input as to the content.

Regards

[smalldog]

Is the above correct?

From Tax Debt - Bankruptcy

Tax after bankruptcy
As a general rule, the tax due for all tax years up to and including the tax year in which you are made bankrupt will be due from your Trustee - from the money he is able to raise - and not from you personally.

I'm one of those who has no assets and no current income. What can I expect to happen?

From what I've read hmrc are generally hell bent on making things as bas as humanly possible. Reasons I suspect being to make sure you don't ever think of straying from the path again and to inflict a form of punishment for stepping out of line. Logic and reason around the cost of bankrupting you vs. the money to be yielded is not a consideration it seems. So don't think cos you have no discernible assets your safe.