BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[nick4notax]

Who cares

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.

So there's a chance someone has prostituted themselves to HMRC. Maybe it's our old nutter friend too? Who cares? I'm pleased MP are not divulging their plans, especially to the likes of all us (no offence intended). Desperate people do desperate things. I know I'm desperate too, although I've not resorted to bending over to Hector just yet. Nor have I sought help from the folks in white coats either. People have different standards, I guess.

Anyway, thanks to TSBT for his take on the more technical assessments of our dilema. Your posts tend to persuade me there's many more arguments to challenge HMRCs ability t ruin us all. I'll even dare to dream about Parliament addressing this travesty, a travesty introduced by those champagne-Socialists who called themselves New Labour. We have much to hope for and reasons to remain quietly optimistic about. Nothing is decided, other than BN66 does not contravene our human rights (yet!!) There is a lot left to cover and MP/WG are without doubt the best to be handling it.

[Fireship]

Brown Envelope

Brown envelope arrived today, nothing special, basically some inspector saying that responsibility for my returns has been passed to them from Brannigan....

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

So there's a chance someone has prostituted themselves to HMRC. Maybe it's our old nutter friend too? Who cares? I'm pleased MP are not divulging their plans, especially to the likes of all us (no offence intended). Desperate people do desperate things. I know I'm desperate too, although I've not resorted to bending over to Hector just yet. Nor have I sought help from the folks in white coats either. People have different standards, I guess.

Anyway, thanks to TSBT for his take on the more technical assessments of our dilema. Your posts tend to persuade me there's many more arguments to challenge HMRCs ability t ruin us all. I'll even dare to dream about Parliament addressing this travesty, a travesty introduced by those champagne-Socialists who called themselves New Labour. We have much to hope for and reasons to remain quietly optimistic about. Nothing is decided, other than BN66 does not contravene our human rights (yet!!) There is a lot left to cover and MP/WG are without doubt the best to be handling it.

Indeed. And on the HR point, if we were doing avoidance before BN66 then as a result of BN66 (now making what we did illegal) then technically we were now engaged in evasion which is a crime. Under Article 6 (Right to a fair trial) of ECtHR making me a criminal retrospectively flies in the face of Article 6. Not sure that under any current UK laws I can be made a criminal retrospectively and punished for that but if retro can change avoidance into evasion then that is technically what has happened. Where's my silk???

If they day comes to pay up then I'll happily roll up to an HMRC office and have a debate with them before paying up. They do say that we can talk to them out our circumstances and I've got War & Peace on that front that might take another 10 years to talk them through before actually handing money over. Their website doesn't say you only have 10 minutes of discussion time with them and as some of you will have noticed, I can drone on for hours....

[bombaycat]

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.

Ta' - and she's gone - but this on her profile did make me laugh "helen7 has not made any friends yet"

[MMSguru]

CTD

You invested (risked) money you knew was not 100% yours until your tax return was accepted by HMRC.

If the business was wiped out, you didn't invest 'wisely' did you.

In hindsight, investing wisely would have been a CTD; but Montpellier and HMRC failed to mention this to us.

I wish MP had advised me to get a CTD years ago when I joined the scheme.
MP only recently told me to get a CTD when I requested a liability calculation.

Anyway, letters sent out today.

[SantaClaus]

Indeed. And on the HR point, if we were doing avoidance before BN66 then as a result of BN66 (now making what we did illegal) then technically we were now engaged in evasion which is a crime. Under Article 6 (Right to a fair trial) of ECtHR making me a criminal retrospectively flies in the face of Article 6. Not sure that under any current UK laws I can be made a criminal retrospectively and punished for that but if retro can change avoidance into evasion then that is technically what has happened. Where's my silk???

If they day comes to pay up then I'll happily roll up to an HMRC office and have a debate with them before paying up. They do say that we can talk to them out our circumstances and I've got War & Peace on that front that might take another 10 years to talk them through before actually handing money over. Their website doesn't say you only have 10 minutes of discussion time with them and as some of you will have noticed, I can drone on for hours....

but we love you for it mate!

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

I was asked earlier if it would be useful to have some content to use in letters that showed (using evidence and text extracts) the total and opposite meaning / effect of BN66 compared to the legislation it claims to clarify. I can provide this and post it here if that helps. I'm not concerned that HMRC read this thread either since they know this already. They just hoped that nobody else would find out. After all, their little meet in November 2007 found out what we know but obviously some 20 year old documents wouldn't be easily remembered right? Wrong. No liable here folks. Just factual extracts from Parliament and IR documents that are then compared to BN66. Stick it in as an appendix to a letter to your MP. You might even want to fire it off to Lord Lamont and ask if he can recall the specifics of 1987. Actually send it to Blair and ask his views now on his anti retro stance in 1987 on tax avoidance. Not sure of the best contact address for him. I think Windrush is the company to contact him on - you know, the one referred to in the press.

Or HMRC could just call off collection and save the hassle of "Spotlight" and we all move on?

[Disgusted of Coventry]

If you read the full Inland Revenue Briefing Notes for the 1987 legislation which interestingly were faxed to an HMRC officer on 5th November 2007 (4 days after an informal HMRC meeting about the Scheme) faxed from HMRC's Solicitors Office - Legal and Governance Room LG76 100 Parliament Street, you'll see that the text has been virtually transplanted into the BN66 Briefing Notes. Interestingly, the officer who requested this faxed content is listed as a contact for queries in the BN66 Briefing Notes which were published a couple of months after the fax was received. I know it's not relevant, but the fax machine in room LG76 had a date stamp on the fax sent of 12th Feb 1996! Even HMRC's fax machines can time travel...

Oh, I forgot to mention. Whilst the text has been transplanted, key words have been left out or changed and in doing so, gives rise to a different interpretation. I've made it a hobby (sad I know) of comparing the text from HMRC documents in 2007 / 2008 and that from 1987. You could not find anything more juxtaposed!

We know HMRC read this thread, so may I suggest you check your fax machine in said room and make sure the date is correct? Oh, and could you tell me who in HMRC underlined the word "unwary" in the Hansard photocopy where someone had also written "Distinguish IoM Partnership & Trust" right next to the underline? It's the photocopy of the 1987 Parliamentary debate on this which has been para-phrased in BN66 to give that legislation a totally new and different meaning, sorry, "clarification". Feeling a little uncomfortable?

How the dickens did you manage to get all this information - right down to the room number?

I've read through all DR's FOI requests, and those *******s don't surrender anything easily.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

How the dickens did you manage to get all this information - right down to the room number?

I've read through all DR's FOI requests, and those *******s don't surrender anything easily.

It gets better. The fax was not only sent from a machine with a retro date stamp, but it was sent to the recipient in the same building 3 floors apart and the target fax number uses a "9" to pre-dial - from the same building! Priceless.

I'd list the bloke who sent the fax and the officer who received it but I don't think it's fair to name names and make it personal. Also forgot to add that not only did the date stamp say 1996 but the time it was sent was 3.45am. I don't think even HMRC are that keen on this matter. BTW, the bloke who sent the fax still works in that department I'm led to believe. Good to have continuity I guess.

Kind of funny to read the Privacy & Confidentiality Note at the bottom of the fax header page too. Or the "Investor in People" logo that goes with it.

And to think that this happened a mere 2 months before BN66 reared its ugly head. I recall HMRC witness testimony for the JR saying something about HMRC looked for the first time at the Padmore legislation in Autumn 2007. Come on, Autumn? November 1st - 5th is way into Winter but lets not be picky about time.

So 6 years of nothing followed by an informal meeting and a fax about Padmore 4 days later then BN66 2 months after that and yet complete contradictions on the two cases when you read Hansard?

Yep, I'm sold on its solid foundations....

[Disgusted of Coventry]

Oh, and could you tell me who in HMRC underlined the word "unwary" in the Hansard photocopy where someone had also written "Distinguish IoM Partnership & Trust" right next to the underline?

This bit seems to add support to Toocan's theory that IoM were deliberately targeted.