BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[p4nd4b34r]

TUT.. Politicians aye who needs em !!... just goes to show its the tail wagging the dog, they are only there to be a face (or two in some cases) it seems the civil servants (HMRC) are running the show just giving the Muppets at the top snippets on what to say.

obviously parliament's a dead end guys.. only hope is MP pull something out of their legal bag of tricks... anyone remember MP?

[TalkingCheese]

Why no brown envelope ?

I do find it odd that we haven't had the brown envelope yet, this time round, demanding more money than we have got ! It has been over 2 months since the SC appeal refusal.

Is it just that difficult to work out how much we owe or are they busy preparing to set up for the fallout ? Perhaps they just missed the boat on Easter and need to wait for the next bout of jollety to come down on !

[BrilloPad]

I do find it odd that we haven't had the brown envelope yet, this time round, demanding more money than we have got ! It has been over 2 months since the SC appeal refusal.

Aren't they setting up a special unit for us? Of course this will just start the appeal process to the lower tax tribunal.

[TalkingCheese]

Aren't they setting up a special unit for us? Of course this will just start the appeal process to the lower tax tribunal.

That's the word on the street. I guess the longer they take, the more interest that accrues... same ole, same ole...

[BrilloPad]

That's the word on the street. I guess the longer they take, the more interest that accrues... same ole, same ole...

Personally I want time now. Chance to get our case before Europe. Personally I don't believe any other avenue will work.

[Emigre]

I do find it odd that we haven't had the brown envelope yet, this time round, demanding more money than we have got ! It has been over 2 months since the SC appeal refusal.

Is it just that difficult to work out how much we owe or are they busy preparing to set up for the fallout ? Perhaps they just missed the boat on Easter and need to wait for the next bout of jollety to come down on !

I guess they are waiting for the Diamond Jubilee.

obviously parliament's a dead end guys.. only hope is MP pull something out of their legal bag of tricks... anyone remember MP?

I totally disagree. All the evidence suggests that HMRC misled Parliament into enacting S58 FA2008. There are six ways that this can be resolved:

1. We give in and pay the full bill, in which case I wonder why I have spent all the time that I have on CUK

2. There is a settlement negotiated; Gauke appears perhaps inadvertently to have opened the door for that. Certainly Suo Motu achieved it back in 2003.

3. The Steed/Huitson/Shiner cases get heard at ECHR who find in our favour on one of the grounds.

4. Test cases get taken to the First Tax Tribunal who determine that S58 does not apply to us. Do not discount this option. There are potential grounds for attack that will never be discussed on this forum.

5. Parliament is made aware that the legislation is unsound, is driving business away from the UK, and determines to amend S58 so that it only had effect from 12 March 2008, the date of publication of BN66 and thus the effective notice date. S58 represents poor Government, all parties are united in the concept of good Government. There is potential for cross party support as we are already experiencing.

6. An Ombudsman complaint about the maladministration of our situation by HMRC, their misleading of Parliament (treasonable), their misleading of the Courts, and potentially their obstruction of the course of justice.

I suspect Parliament may want to help to avoid some of the other outcomes.

[moira under the stairs]

I guess they are waiting for the Diamond Jubilee.

We give in and pay the full bill,

Not an option, why give what WAS not due.

[Fireship]

Clarification (don't shoot me for using that word!)

I got a reply to my letter from Gauke’s office…..

It’s full of the usual flannel:

• “HMRC has made it clear that it considered that the scheme did not work and has regularly recommended that payments on account be made”
• “Since both the High Court and the Court of Appeal have found that, in the circumstances of this matter, the retrospective element of section 58 is proportionate and compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, it is not appropriate for the Government to interfere with that decision.”

But the last paragraph was particularly interesting:

• “Finally, as I hope you will appreciate, I am unable to comment on the individual cases you mention for reasons of taxpayer confidentiality. However, large business tax settlements are a vital part of how HMRC secures tax revenues for the country and without them Britain’s public finances would be seriously damaged. The legislation that binds HMRC makes no distinction between types of taxpayer – whether it is an individual or a large business.”

Either that’s complete rubbish as clearly the Barclays and Vodaphone’s of the world are receiving different treatment to that of ourselves, or HMRC are planning to change their position….. I know what I’d bet my money on!!!

Folks,

I didn’t make something clear in the original post, I wrote to Gauke and his office passed my letter onto HMRC for comment.

The reply (including that wonderful last paragraph) came direct from HMRC.

[p4nd4b34r]

I guess they are waiting for the Diamond Jubilee.



I totally disagree. All the evidence suggests that HMRC misled Parliament into enacting S58 FA2008. There are six ways that this can be resolved:

1. We give in and pay the full bill, in which case I wonder why I have spent all the time that I have on CUK

2. There is a settlement negotiated; Gauke appears perhaps inadvertently to have opened the door for that. Certainly Suo Motu achieved it back in 2003.

3. The Steed/Huitson/Shiner cases get heard at ECHR who find in our favour on one of the grounds.

4. Test cases get taken to the First Tax Tribunal who determine that S58 does not apply to us. Do not discount this option. There are potential grounds for attack that will never be discussed on this forum.

5. Parliament is made aware that the legislation is unsound, is driving business away from the UK, and determines to amend S58 so that it only had effect from 12 March 2008, the date of publication of BN66 and thus the effective notice date. S58 represents poor Government, all parties are united in the concept of good Government. There is potential for cross party support as we are already experiencing.

6. An Ombudsman complaint about the maladministration of our situation by HMRC, their misleading of Parliament (treasonable), their misleading of the Courts, and potentially their obstruction of the course of justice.

I suspect Parliament may want to help to avoid some of the other outcomes.

Anything involving parliament is a damp squib, they are just as bad as nulab and noone will be getting my vote next time, unless we have a ukip candidate. I like option 4 but am wondering why MP dont go before special commisioners with one of the 4 'test' cases if they have an opinion along these lines.

There is also an option 7. Noone pays, and we are all made criminals on the basis of a retrospective law.

[CanPayButWouldRatherNot]

time 2 update the front page> everyone should meet their MP and use below points ?

DR,

Wonder if it is worth updating the front page summary to put a request for folks to see their MP ..

Also is it worth updating the one pager you did


http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...ml#post1519773

no mention of india using UK retro legislation against us currently on that link

respect

NO SURRENDER etc