BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[winstontizzer]

Appeal To ECHR

If MP's Counsel advises an appeal to the ECHR, Counsel should pay regard to and plead the findings of the EU Study on The Rule of Law, adopted/ratified/accepted by the Venice Commission in April 2011. This is an extract on retrospection in the context of the duty of all Member States to uphold the pillars of the Rule of Law (the one in question here is Legal Certainty) and the Convention on Human Rights.
46. Legal certainty requires that legal rules are clear and precise, and aim at ensuring that situations and legal relationships remain foreseeable. Retroactivity also goes against the principle of legal certainty, at least in criminal law (Article 7 ECHR), since legal subjects have to know the consequences of their behaviour; but also in civil and administrative law to the extent it negatively affects rights and legal interests.

[SantaClaus]

And there's Mr and Mrs H (Mr Corporate dinner), there's probably a Davis and a MacDougall somewhere. And the Committee is finished off with Timms and Kennedy. Gauke didn't make it he couldn't make up his mind which coloured underwear to put on that day.

Probably the CEO of Goldmans and Vodafone too.

[Donnie Darko]

Surely the only argument that can be advanced at the tax tribunal is that the law (BN66) doesn't apply to us?

But how could that be?

HMRC knew exactly what our scheme was. They'd had 7 years to get familiar with it.

Drafting the retrospective law to catch us should have been like shooting fish in a barrel.

How could they possibly miss the target?

[Disgusted of Coventry]

Drafting the retrospective law to catch us should have been like shooting fish in a barrel.

Wasn't there a case recently about Tax Returns? Something about their failure to send out reminders? I think a Court found that the failure to tell people that which they already knew disentitled HMRC to charge late filing penalties.

And yet here, HMRC are positively advantaged by not telling people that which they don't already know.

Weird!

[smalldog]

I'm curious that bn66 can't just have hit us and I'm sure hmrc will commit at tt stage that they will allocate sufficient resource to trawl back thru all tax records dating back to 1987 to ensure everyone appropriate is captured, and if not I will want to know why! Surely it's 1 rule for all right?

[BolshieBastard]

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.

LOL! (Except it isnt funny!) They've known since the 7th Feb and all we get sometime next week is an 'interim holding position'? ****'s sake.

[smalldog]

LOL! (Except it isnt funny!) They've known since the 7th Feb and all we get sometime next week is an 'interim holding position'? ****'s sake.

Bb I hear ya but seriously this was never gonna be the difference between "brilliant we've won" and " oh tulip we're screwed" so what's the rush, leave em to it. Far as I'm concerned nobody's knocking on my door yet so we're all good.

[BrilloPad]

LOL! (Except it isnt funny!) They've known since the 7th Feb and all we get sometime next week is an 'interim holding position'? ****'s sake.

I want them to consider every possible avenue and think carefully. But we should have had the holding letter on 7th Feb.

[SantaClaus]

Bb I hear ya but seriously this was never gonna be the difference between "brilliant we've won" and " oh tulip we're screwed" so what's the rush, leave em to it. Far as I'm concerned nobody's knocking on my door yet so we're all good.

Should be enough time to allow me to get those 10 ft high railings up and a machine gun mounted on the roof.

[OnYourBikeGB]

I thought for one minute that you were suggesting that HMRC are not criminals. Theft is what they do for a living.

I'm not even sure what the word means anymore. An ex-PM who hid his money away with smoke and mirrors so as to pay the minimum amount of tax is not criminal. To deliberately mislead Parliament is not criminal. To wine and dine with the major companies and then have a few 'oversights' letting them off with hundreds of millions is not criminal. To screw up tax collection for hundreds of thousands of old age pensioners, then force them into hardship to pay for your mistake, and not even being prepared to offer an apology is not criminal. To scheme and entrap small business people, destroying lives and families is not criminal. But be open and honest, play within the rules, fully declare and explain everything is. We'd have been better off dealing with the mafia.