BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[smalldog]

Surely this document is a very clear admission that what HMRC has done is completely wrong.

Or perhaps they could explain why our case was "wholly exceptional" against other instances of legislation change that were prospective.

Surely MP should be approaching this angle or at least explaining to us why not.

I think I am right in saying that it has already been established that BN66 is a legislation change or amendment therefore continuation of this case against us flies in the wind of what this new document is about!

Or have I got it wrong?

that is my point too, hence why I think we should attempt to lobby MP's and I think MP are P*ssing in the proverbial if they are intent on continuing with the pure HR angle, by all means include it but dont make it the only argument

[BenniDorm]

Wikileaks...?!

I'm sure Mr Assange would be interested in our dossier...?!

[OnYourBikeGB]

that is my point too, hence why I think we should attempt to lobby MP's and I think MP are P*ssing in the proverbial if they are intent on continuing with the pure HR angle, by all means include it but dont make it the only argument

I think so too. But this time we should go prepared to bring it home on a personal basis - prepared to show that we are ready to highlight publicly if need be, the differences practised by the organisations they are connected with and what we have had to endure. Appealing to their sense of decency is pointless. We should emphasis that we are not seeking to duck the tax tribunals, that we are prepared to be judged under the law as it was, the same law that HMRC had always said was applicable - because that allows MPs to back us without supporting tax avoidance. We should in short speak softly and respectfully, but show that we will not accept hypocrisy quietly.

[smalldog]

the government want this off their radar so of course they are saying "let the courts decide", keeps it off their issue list and its double standards in my view. they arent going to fight our corner, naive to think otherwise. Maybe unlike previously its time to lobby the Labour MP's, they would have a ball with this "persecute the little people!!".

let off the big corps and the super rich but hit the small BUSINESS which is what we are after all, and that includes plumbers, other trades people and other freelancers that also used this scheme who the general public would not consider the super rich.

The COA judgement was made on the basis of the principles and legislation as it was, that landscape has all changed since this unplanned tax change ruling. If it had come in prior to the COA then i wonder if the outcome would have been different.

I would happily send something to my MP pointing out this injustice

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Montpelier can't get involved in anything of a political nature while the matter is in the hands of the courts. Drafting letters for us to send to members of Parliament would be a big no no.

This brings me on to another point I would like to make.

Lack of Communication from Montpelier

A number of people have complained about this. However, consider the following.

There were letters and other material, HMRC presented in evidence, which they could have only got from clients.

Montpelier have to assume that anything they circulate to us could fall into the wrong hands.

[smalldog]

Montpelier can't get involved in anything of a political nature while the matter is in the hands of the courts. Drafting letters for us to send to members of Parliament would be a big no no.

This brings me on to another point I would like to make.

Lack of Communication from Montpelier

A number of people have complained about this. However, consider the following.

There were letters and other material, HMRC presented in evidence, which they could have only got from clients.

Montpelier have to assume that anything they circulate to us could fall into the wrong hands.

whats the worst that can happen?? they going to take us to court??

on a serious note I think the gloves are off, why pander to protocol its got us nowhere so far?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

whats the worst that can happen?? they going to take us to court??

on a serious note I think the gloves are off, why pander to protocol its got us nowhere so far?

I can tell you Montpelier won't do it. I've previously asked on several occasions if they would circulate letters we had drafted. The answer was always No.

Why do we need them anyway? If it's to get shear numbers, it won't have the desired effect if it's an identical mailshot. This will just irritate MPs and the Treasury.

Either people need to write their own letter OR a very small number of people send the same text perhaps with a bit of personalised stuff.

[Emigre]

Montpelier can't get involved in anything of a political nature while the matter is in the hands of the courts. Drafting letters for us to send to members of Parliament would be a big no no.

This brings me on to another point I would like to make.

Lack of Communication from Montpelier

A number of people have complained about this. However, consider the following.

There were letters and other material, HMRC presented in evidence, which they could have only got from clients.

Montpelier have to assume that anything they circulate to us could fall into the wrong hands.

Some very good points DR.

For those that want to "take action", what action? When everyone wrote to their MPs last time, or via their MPs to Kennedy/Timms/Gauke/Osborne/Cameron there was one standard answer "Let the Courts decide". Well guess what, we are still in that situation. They will all hide behind the fact that the judiciary are independent of Government.

MP have done everything they said they would do so far. I'm sure we will hear shortly that they have applied for application to appeal to the SC. At this stage, that is all that can be asked.

If people want to "take action" you need a strategy. What is it? If its all about shaming political connections with tax avoiding corporates do you really think they'll have a Damascan moment and see our plight, and more, be sufficiently resolved to sort it out? I don't think so! Hypocrisy is the first word on the average politician's CV.

Why not look beyond what has already been served up. Why assume that our legal team has all the answers. There are 11,000 pages of tax code; no one knows it all, not even the lawyers. I'm sure there are opportunities within all that code to render S58 not applicable to us, so even if we lose at the SC on HR grounds we could potentially go to the tax tribunal and argue "not applicable" on legal/technical grounds. This is about thinking and looking laterally. As a group there is a far greater opportunity to achieve something good.

[IH8GordonB]

I can tell you Montpelier won't do it. I've previously asked on several occasions if they would circulate letters we had drafted. The answer was always No.

Why do we need them anyway? If it's to get shear numbers, it won't have the desired effect if it's an identical mailshot. This will just irritate MPs and the Treasury.

Either people need to write their own letter OR a very small number of people send the same text perhaps with a bit of personalised stuff.

So what we really need is a set of bullet points that cover what we want to get across. Using these points we can all write a personalised letter which won't look like a mailshot yet will cover all the issues we want to bring to the attention of our MPs.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

draft letter

Sadly they probably won't answer the questions directly.

They need to be careful though. Any admission that s58 could still be possible under the new Protocol would send out a very worrying signal.

Dear ...

Re. Section 58 Finance Act 2008

I have written to you previously about this topic but I now have two new questions I would like you to put to the Government.

(1) Does the Government accept that section 58 could not have happened under the Protocol, on unscheduled announcements of changes in tax law, announced in the recent budget?

(2) If so, why is the Government leaving it to the courts to decide this matter?

I look forward to receiving a response from a Government Minister.

Yours sincerely,