BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[TalkingCheese]

What a F***ing scumbag!!!

I dont get why someone who is affected would do that??? Maybe there is a mole in MP, aggrieved employee maybe?

Or maybe they are trying to negotiate for themselves and that is part of the deal?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Around 1500 people used the MP scheme 2001 - 2008.

It's possible some have quietly settled with HMRC but they may still be on the mailing list.

MP are fully aware that once they release info to us it could end up anywhere.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Or maybe we are just sending Hector on a goose chase

Folks,

It's like a Donald Rumsfeld moment. They know, we know, they know we know....

None of this is new, it's just not chrystallised. Anyways, the TC requires a written submission from both parties well in advance so MP and HMRC will know the grounds well before we get to court.

It's been around for a while now that BN66 is no more a clarification of Padmore than Man City is the same team as Man Utd. What that means legally and in our defence remains to be seen.

But consider this. One thing about retrospection is unless you burn the evidence, the facts as they were are still the same. Sure you can change the law retrospectively and we're all screwed but you cannot change what has been done or said (Hansard 1987). If I have to pay I want to have some pleasure in doing so. HMRC can argue or build a defence on the points raised as much as they like, but unless you re-write history, you cannot erase it. One of the better aspects of retro is to prove how it defies logic and if in doing so others get a kicking for using it then happy days.

[OldITGit]

MP Circulars

Incidentally, while we're on this subject.

I have it on good authority that HMRC are getting hold of the MP circulars from somewhere.

It seems not all of us can be trusted.

If that is the case it would explain the lack of updates from MP and I would totally agree with that approach. I for one feel a little more at ease after the excellent work by TSBT re Hansard
OIG

[swede]

If that is the case it would explain the lack of updates from MP and I would totally agree with that approach. I for one feel a little more at ease after the excellent work by TSBT re Hansard
OIG

Agreed again (I seem to be doing a lot of agreeing)...

It's one thing to have access to all the information on this dotted around the internet, in letters, documents etc., but completely another to be able to distill it into something concise and coherent.

Well done TSBT.

[RingStinger]

So just to confirm you invested your risked money and now have a CTD or are getting one?

I seem to remember the BBC getting wind of her 300K+ liability, and then she said she'd spent it.....

I'm going to have to put this Helen7 bird on ignore if I can work out how to. Everytime I start to feel good about myself, she pops up again .....

And before you say I'm being derogatory, check out her condescending posts...

[cojak]

I seem to remember the BBC getting wind of her 300K+ liability, and then she said she'd spent it.....

I'm going to have to put this Helen7 bird on ignore if I can work out how to. Everytime I start to feel good about myself, she pops up again .....

And before you say I'm being derogatory, check out her condescending posts...

1. Find a post of Helen7
2. Click on her name
3. Click on 'View profile'
4. On the left side under her name click on 'Add to Ignore List'

Job done.

[Toocan]

Incidentally, while we're on this subject.

I have it on good authority that HMRC are getting hold of the MP circulars from somewhere.

It seems not all of us can be trusted.

Maybe someone who works for HMRC used the scheme too.

The arguments being discussed this afternoon relate to how Parliament was misled - there are only two ways to have these heard. One is by writing to your MP (Have you done that yet?) and the second is via the Parliamentary Ombudsman. By the time the Ombudsman gets involved it will be too late.

The point that The Donkey keeps making is that Parliament HAS BEEN misled and has enacted s.58. These arguments do not change that - the law is the law. And it is the law that any tax court will enforce.

HMRC must be feeling very proud of themselves right now - they've found a way to defeat one of MTM's schemes. Have you written that letter yet?

Go see your MP - this won't fix itself.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Maybe someone who works for HMRC used the scheme too.

The arguments being discussed this afternoon relate to how Parliament was misled - there are only two ways to have these heard. One is by writing to your MP (Have you done that yet?) and the second is via the Parliamentary Ombudsman. By the time the Ombudsman gets involved it will be too late.

The point that The Donkey keeps making is that Parliament HAS BEEN misled and has enacted s.58. These arguments do not change that - the law is the law. And it is the law that any tax court will enforce.

HMRC must be feeling very proud of themselves right now - they've found a way to defeat one of MTM's schemes. Have you written that letter yet?

Go see your MP - this won't fix itself.

And the key is to see your MP. And when you do be sure you know what you want rather than state what is wrong and then explain why you want it. Repeal of the retro element or the same carve out as was done in 1987 for the same reasons. Or just give them the URL to Hansard July 15 1987 and a copy of "that fax".

[SantaClaus]

Folks,

It's like a Donald Rumsfeld moment. They know, we know, they know we know....

None of this is new, it's just not chrystallised. Anyways, the TC requires a written submission from both parties well in advance so MP and HMRC will know the grounds well before we get to court.

It's been around for a while now that BN66 is no more a clarification of Padmore than Man City is the same team as Man Utd. What that means legally and in our defence remains to be seen.

But consider this. One thing about retrospection is unless you burn the evidence, the facts as they were are still the same. Sure you can change the law retrospectively and we're all screwed but you cannot change what has been done or said (Hansard 1987). If I have to pay I want to have some pleasure in doing so. HMRC can argue or build a defence on the points raised as much as they like, but unless you re-write history, you cannot erase it. One of the better aspects of retro is to prove how it defies logic and if in doing so others get a kicking for using it then happy days.

Exactly TSBT. However I would argue that history can be erased. We've seen it before, where documents go missing from HMRC's website.

I'm sure others are already doing this, but anything of use on the HMRC website should be copied for posterity in case it gets changed or deleted by the HMRC time and space word mangler.

I can recommend Jet Screenshot for free and instant screen capture.