BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[Morlock]

... from what I understand, once your affairs are in the hands of the bankruptcy court, HMRC will be just one of a long line of creditors with no preferential treatment over the others.

That is correct now. but prior to 15 September 2003, the Crown (=HMRC) would have had preferential priority.

So I presume Hector just has to take another quick hop in his Tardis in order to bag your cash...

[KiwiGuy]

what now

Hey All,

Cant sleep now 12:14am....

So someone tell me what the options are now....is there more to go with MP...or is that it? (sorry i havent been following for a while)

I also love the letter from HMRC..."Pay now"..... would be nice if they told us how much they think is owed? or is there a way of seeing that?

[SantaClaus]

That is correct now. but prior to 15 September 2003, the Crown (=HMRC) would have had preferential priority.

So I presume Hector just has to take another quick hop in his Tardis in order to bag your cash...

I think I need a tardis to take me on a round the world cruise.

[Disgusted of Coventry]

Too Machiavellian?

Entrapment pure and simple!!!

The weird thing about this is that it may well have played a significant role in determining the Judges' decisions.

Once the amount of alleged revenue had exceeded some threshold value (£100m, say), wouldn't it have become politically difficult for Judges to find in favour of the Appellant on the grounds of proportionality and public interest?

HMRC couldn't be that Machiavellian, could they?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Montpelier Circular

The letter is going out tomorrow.

BUT do not get excited. It is just an interim holding position. They are still consulting with Counsel and other parties.

Yes this could have been sent 2 weeks ago but I suggest we get over it and move on.

[Rhydd]

Approaching Members of Parliament

Personally I think you wasting your time. I'd expect the response to be that the government/parliament left the matter with the courts to decide and they now have so **** off

Whatever opinion we have of Members of Parliament, they and parliament are the biggest contributor to our position - they enacted the retrospective legislation. HMRC no doubt sees itself as quite properly implementing the will of Parliament. The courts see themselves as interpreting the will of parliament. I think that we should all now start pressing our Members of Parliament to intervene in what is a manifestly unfair piece of legislation. I agree with others that we are very likely to be branded as "tax dodgers" by the wider media and should keep clear of them. I also feel that we should wait for Montpelier's letter - they have stuck with us all the way so far. There is a huge amount of technical detail that we can take to our Members of Parliament. I suggest that as well as giving that detail we ask each of them one very simple question: "Do you approve of retrospective legislation - yes or no?". My guess is that most of them see themselves as people of principle who disapprove of retrospective legislation: once they have said that they don't approve of it then we can move them to what actions they will take to protect us from the consequences.

Find your MP's email address here:
Lists of MPs - UK Parliament

[SantaClaus]

Whatever opinion we have of Members of Parliament, they and parliament are the biggest contributor to our position - they enacted the retrospective legislation. HMRC no doubt sees itself as quite properly implementing the will of Parliament. The courts see themselves as interpreting the will of parliament. I think that we should all now start pressing our Members of Parliament to intervene in what is a manifestly unfair piece of legislation. I agree with others that we are very likely to be branded as "tax dodgers" by the wider media and should keep clear of them. I also feel that we should wait for Montpelier's letter - they have stuck with us all the way so far. There is a huge amount of technical detail that we can take to our Members of Parliament. I suggest that as well as giving that detail we ask each of them one very simple question: "Do you approve of retrospective legislation - yes or no?". My guess is that most of them see themselves as people of principle who disapprove of retrospective legislation: once they have said that they don't approve of it then we can move them to what actions they will take to protect us from the consequences.

Find your MP's email address here:
Lists of MPs - UK Parliament

I've never met an MP who has said "yes" or "no". Good luck with that!

[smalldog]

The letter is going out tomorrow.

BUT do not get excited. It is just an interim holding position. They are still consulting with Counsel and other parties.

Yes this could have been sent 2 weeks ago but I suggest we get over it and move on.

DR totally utterly couldnt agree more. What we dont need is a knee jerk reaction at this stage from MP purely in the interests of satisfying nerves. I want them to take their time and consider their strategy and maybe have some kind of framework in place with HMRC to progrees this to its conclusion. Its pretty bloody obvious (to me anyway) thats what theyre doing and I dont need a letter stating as such.

[WhatEver]

Whatever opinion we have of Members of Parliament, they and parliament are the biggest contributor to our position - they enacted the retrospective legislation. HMRC no doubt sees itself as quite properly implementing the will of Parliament. The courts see themselves as interpreting the will of parliament. I think that we should all now start pressing our Members of Parliament to intervene in what is a manifestly unfair piece of legislation. I agree with others that we are very likely to be branded as "tax dodgers" by the wider media and should keep clear of them. I also feel that we should wait for Montpelier's letter - they have stuck with us all the way so far. There is a huge amount of technical detail that we can take to our Members of Parliament. I suggest that as well as giving that detail we ask each of them one very simple question: "Do you approve of retrospective legislation - yes or no?". My guess is that most of them see themselves as people of principle who disapprove of retrospective legislation: once they have said that they don't approve of it then we can move them to what actions they will take to protect us from the consequences.

Find your MP's email address here:
Lists of MPs - UK Parliament

agreed, my letter is going today. It's personal, includes some work background around IR35 and reason I went for the scheme. I spell out the timeline including the original conservative attempt to amend BN66 and HMRCs actions throughout. No harm in referring back to the amendment, the deal struck with Suo Motu, and the question around retro interest.

[KiwiGuy]

The letter is going out tomorrow.

BUT do not get excited. It is just an interim holding position. They are still consulting with Counsel and other parties.

Yes this could have been sent 2 weeks ago but I suggest we get over it and move on.

DR whats left in your opinion?