BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[bananarepublic]

Yep. it seems that that HMRC WRITE LEGISLATION. I have it in black and white. No point in voting everyone, the civil service run the country. And can, therefore hide their mistakes for 7/8 years at a time.

I have been very calm about this up until now, but now the gloves at off.

The point about HMRC not agreeing that what we did was allowable is completely and totally irrelevant! They were always going to say that they disagreed with the relief we claimed. In the same way they would go after someone claiming they were self employed in some circumstances but employed in other identical circumstances. What HMRC thought is irrelevant. They probably disagree with 99.9% of tax "schemes". What *IS* important is that they have to obey the law like everybody else. The fact that HMRC disagreed is a total smokescreen for their incompetence.

If they disagreed why did they *NEVER* but up a strong argument as to why the scheme did *NOT* work?

[bananarepublic]

I think he needs a reason to help.

The JR ONLY found that the government had the right to make law retrospectively. However, Parliament were misled. The evidence presented to them was incomplete and misleading. It is for Parliament to correct that - not the courts.

HMRC did not make it clear that the scheme did not work because the scheme plainly did work until section 58 was passed into law in 2008. If it had not worked before that then HMRC would have told us why and issued a closure notice. They didn't. Instead they asked us to await a commissionaires hearing - asking if we would be bound by its decision.

So here we are, we are somehow expected to believe that they regularly told us to pay (how much? that changed too!) and yet somehow ignore the letter that entraped us by asking us to be bound by a commissionaires hearing?

How about writing back and pointing out that you do not want repeal, but rather ammendment so that the legislation respects the principle of legitimate expectation. And also, why not throw in that you do not think it is appropiate that HMRC are writing replies for ministers of the Crown!

A lot of people seem to think that the HR case failed because we somehow failed to put our argument over, missing pertinent points. Not a bit of it. Our HR case failed, simply and purely because parliament could enact retrospective legislation. Our arguments were irrelevant to this simple fact, the justifications about how we were warned, blah blah blah, a mere embelishment.

[smalldog]

GMRC and Gauke

Its kinda sad that a tory politician is actually saying in print that he agrees with a Labour lead HMRC policy. Also he is defending a government institute (HMRC) in which his government hand had no part. Strange, politicians usually jump at the chance of blaming the previous guys for cocking up, maybe he doesnt appreciate the opportunity presented to him, and on a plate...

headline: "Labour government again cockup in dodgy 2008 retrospection and torys ride in on their white horses to unwind an unsound retrospective act"

Sorry guys, but in my view this whole writing to MP thing was never gonna yield a result, its only gonna happen if at all through the tribunals IMHO.

[Fireship]

Gauke: Throughout, HMRC has made it clear that it considered that the scheme did not work and has regularly recommended that payments on account be made.

Utter rubbish, HMRC never made it clear because they never provided any valid reason other than “we say you own us money therefore you do”!! When they finally did provide a technical argument it couldn’t have been more counterproductive to their cause had they tried!!! In fact they had no argument at all (until the invention of the time machine) so why on earth should we have been expected to put money aside to pay for something that quite simply wasn’t due? It’s my money, I have a right to it - A1P1 again!

Hell, by that logic I’ve been telling Camelot for the last decade or so that they owe me millions in unpaid lottery winnings… I just told them that even though I had no valid claim to the winnings but in doing so that makes it a valid claim right? When pressed for a technical argument I finally (after many years of procrastinating) gave in and told them it was because I had once dressed as a penguin and lathered myself in Lurpak whilst rubbing my butt on a lottery ticket in 1927. Turns out Camelot’s legal team nearly died laughing at my ineptitude!! Can’t understand why?? Anyway, I had the last laugh as my newly finished time machine meant I could travel back in time and purchase whatever lottery tickets I felt like then cash them in 21 years later!! Now Camelot own me a fortune (plus interest) and best of all because I once told them they owed me the money despite not having any valid reason at the time (other than an odd butter related incident which still gives me nightmares) it turns out that apparently they were forewarned and should’ve been saving for the eventuality that the history books be rewritten….

Here’s the kicker, Einstein, the genius that he was, didn’t managed to compete his theory of everything before his death. He had speculated the possibility of time travel but placed restrictions on the possibility due to the physical limitations of matter and the inability to exceed the speed of light – yet somehow the intellectual equivalent of a bunch of monkeys swinging from a tyre on a rope have managed what he couldn’t ? Go figure!

[p4nd4b34r]

Please can I have your votes.

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...n-funding.html

I put myself down for £200, but as it would probably an ongoing campaign, I would be happy to contribute this monthly...

is political lobbying allowable against tax?

[nevergiveup]

I put myself down for £200, but as it would probably an ongoing campaign, I would be happy to contribute this monthly...

is political lobbying allowable against tax?

WHS +1

[BolshieBastard]

Its just chucking more money down the drain. The BN66 fight is lost. The torygraph runs new stories almost daily about people using PSC's to avoid tax. You are going to be swimming against a very strong current with joe public being sympathetic.

We need to get sufficient number of MP's to put down an early day motion and get a debate in the House on the imposition of retrospective interest, any penalties and the effect it will have on people.

[Dieselpower]

Its just chucking more money down the drain. The BN66 fight is lost. The torygraph runs new stories almost daily about people using PSC's to avoid tax. You are going to be swimming against a very strong current with joe public being sympathetic.

We need to get sufficient number of MP's to put down an early day motion and get a debate in the House on the imposition of retrospective interest, any penalties and the effect it will have on people.

The poll asks whether people would like to contribute to a PR campaign. P4nd4 is kindly willing to contribute like I am sure many of us here. the Campaign is a PR campaign. You refer to getting MP's to table a motion etc - you are 100% correct; hence a PR campaign; a PR campaign doesnt necessarily mean a Nationwide public campaign - it CAN be aimed, you know, at just a group of people - the people that have the ability to change things; hence donations would be required; hence it isnt "throwing money down the drain" at all

[Ninja]

Yep. it seems that that HMRC WRITE LEGISLATION. I have it in black and white. No point in voting everyone, the civil service run the country. And can, therefore hide their mistakes for 7/8 years at a time.

I have been very calm about this up until now, but now the gloves at off.

The soft underbelly of any elected official is their local constituency party, which is run mostly by amateurs. Maybe now's the time to take a very close look at their election expenses, which are public record, thanks to the Electoral Commission. Just a thought.....

[BolshieBastard]

The poll asks whether people would like to contribute to a PR campaign. P4nd4 is kindly willing to contribute like I am sure many of us here. the Campaign is a PR campaign. You refer to getting MP's to table a motion etc - you are 100% correct; hence a PR campaign; a PR campaign doesnt necessarily mean a Nationwide public campaign - it CAN be aimed, you know, at just a group of people - the people that have the ability to change things; hence donations would be required; hence it isnt "throwing money down the drain" at all

You dont need to spend money convincing MP's to table an early day motion.

What is proposed is, imo, just chucking money after bad. But carry on if you wish.