Further recollections and future options
Just for the record, I was also told in 2002 that the scheme would be limited to 350 people so was likewise astounded to subsequently find that there were thousands in it (a double edged sword I thought at the time - safety in numbers or a more worthwhile target for HMRC?). Also, during an initial presentation by MTM, when asked what would happen if they lost at the House of Lords, their response was - 'oh, we always negotiate in the last instance'. I wonder if this is still a valid option given the 4-0 defeat so far. I suppose the SC appeal would have to be on the cards in order to provide any leverage at all.
Considering future options, it seems to me that this Human Rights approach hasn't given any glimmer of hope so far as it seems to boil down to the question, 'was the retrospective legislation fair and proportionate?' Of course it is then much easier for the LJs to go for the general public interest argument and side with the government, avoiding having to overturn existing budget legislation - way above their pay grade as already stated. One of our main complaints however is the abysmal way in which this whole debacle has been handled by HMRC over the 6 or more years leading up to the Section 58 legislation. Is it worthwhile considering opening up a second front and complaining to the Ombudsman or whoever is supposed to deal with complaints against the HMRC, coupled with a mass lobbying of MPs (including 'Your Freedom' Nick Clegg and the others who were firmly against retrospective legislation whilst in opposition?).
Like others on this thread, I would appeciate some communication from Montpelier, but accept they need to be given a few days to consider their tactics.
Just for the record, I was also told in 2002 that the scheme would be limited to 350 people so was likewise astounded to subsequently find that there were thousands in it (a double edged sword I thought at the time - safety in numbers or a more worthwhile target for HMRC?). Also, during an initial presentation by MTM, when asked what would happen if they lost at the House of Lords, their response was - 'oh, we always negotiate in the last instance'. I wonder if this is still a valid option given the 4-0 defeat so far. I suppose the SC appeal would have to be on the cards in order to provide any leverage at all.
Considering future options, it seems to me that this Human Rights approach hasn't given any glimmer of hope so far as it seems to boil down to the question, 'was the retrospective legislation fair and proportionate?' Of course it is then much easier for the LJs to go for the general public interest argument and side with the government, avoiding having to overturn existing budget legislation - way above their pay grade as already stated. One of our main complaints however is the abysmal way in which this whole debacle has been handled by HMRC over the 6 or more years leading up to the Section 58 legislation. Is it worthwhile considering opening up a second front and complaining to the Ombudsman or whoever is supposed to deal with complaints against the HMRC, coupled with a mass lobbying of MPs (including 'Your Freedom' Nick Clegg and the others who were firmly against retrospective legislation whilst in opposition?).
Like others on this thread, I would appeciate some communication from Montpelier, but accept they need to be given a few days to consider their tactics.
- Maybe they'll send out some bounty hunters out for us 
Comment