BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[Fireship]

I'm all for it. But it requires everyone to get involved. Couldn't help but notice that some people are appearing on this thread after many years of silence.

Do we want a campaign that is just a trickle of letters or a flood?

FLOOD!!!!

Count me in!!

Probably best if we go down the route of one one of the more informed members producing something again - at least that way all the facts will be represented in a clear, concise, and easily digested form that gets the point across!

[Fireship]

Excellent. That is seriously uplifting.

There are other avenues to follow as well. Just because HMRC tells you that S58 has been made law, does not necessarily mean that it applies to us. There may well be loopholes that exempt us from the application of S58. After all, there are over 11,000 pages of tax law to offer that opportunity.

Actually, who’s to say we can’t start the whole process all over again based on a different line of attack??

The A1P1 angle always seemed a too narrow a target and it seems the SC would agree, however we’ve never challenged all the other aspects of the legislations introduction, i.e. the fact that MP’s and parliament were deliberately misled in order to pass the bill in the first place and a whole bunch of other wrongdoings by HMRC which effectively denied us our day in court…. Why can’t we take the fight right to HMRC’s door and challenge this based on their numerous failings and blatant disregard for the rules!

[SantaClaus]

A very interesting gentleman indeed.

Perhaps a group approach (from a cost savings point of view) may be in order if we fail via the next proposed method

I like the quote at the bottom:

"Tax Doesn't have to be taxing but it is"

[swede]

Actually, who’s to say we can’t start the whole process all over again based on a different line of attack??

The A1P1 angle always seemed a too narrow a target and it seems the SC would agree, however we’ve never challenged all the other aspects of the legislations introduction, i.e. the fact that MP’s and parliament were deliberately misled in order to pass the bill in the first place and a whole bunch of other wrongdoings by HMRC which effectively denied us our day in court…. Why can’t we take the fight right to HMRC’s door and challenge this based on their numerous failings and blatant disregard for the rules!

very good point. Another JR?

[smalldog]

I'm hoping this is the kind of thing mp put forwards as next steps

[bananarepublic]

Actually, who’s to say we can’t start the whole process all over again based on a different line of attack??

The A1P1 angle always seemed a too narrow a target and it seems the SC would agree, however we’ve never challenged all the other aspects of the legislations introduction, i.e. the fact that MP’s and parliament were deliberately misled in order to pass the bill in the first place and a whole bunch of other wrongdoings by HMRC which effectively denied us our day in court…. Why can’t we take the fight right to HMRC’s door and challenge this based on their numerous failings and blatant disregard for the rules!

This has all been through ad-infinitum. Perhaps it may carry some weight with the ECHR, but as far as the current situation is concerned the fact is that the law stands and it doesn't matter how we got to this point. Whether parliament was misled or not is irrelevant to the fact that the law was changed retrospectively in a Finance Act voted through parliament.

[bananarepublic]

This has all been through ad-infinitum. Perhaps it may carry some weight with the ECHR, but as far as the current situation is concerned the fact is that the law stands and it doesn't matter how we got to this point. Whether parliament was misled or not is irrelevant to the fact that the law was changed retrospectively in a Finance Act voted through parliament.

Assuming that MP don't have some really clever argument up their sleeve (and I can't see how given the INTENTION of parliament was to shut US down) then the following seems to be "in play" at the moment

1. Use of discovery
2. NI on trust income
3. Payment plan

Suggest waiting to see what MP have to say before parting with cash to get a different representative. I don't think HMRC are in any mood to negotiate particularly with a small "break-away" group.

[Fireship]

This has all been through ad-infinitum. Perhaps it may carry some weight with the ECHR, but as far as the current situation is concerned the fact is that the law stands and it doesn't matter how we got to this point. Whether parliament was misled or not is irrelevant to the fact that the law was changed retrospectively in a Finance Act voted through parliament.

Correct, the law stands, however that was also true when we started down the legal challenge road, it’s certainly not a recent development!

The point is that a lot of the issues worthy of addressing have never actually been part of any legal challenge so there’s nothing to lose by looking into the possibility of another challenge based on the wider facts surrounding the implementation of the legislation as opposed to the post implementation impact!

[ready_to_leave]

Just to add a bit of info here. I did broach the subject of a deal with HMRC for a full settlement without interest or a reduction and I was told that not only was that not remotely possible under the law and HMRC's own rules but that they would be actively pushing for "a full repayment of monies including interest".

I suppose I should have started the conversation with "As a board member of Goldman Sachs...."

Correct, the law stands, however that was also true when we started down the legal challenge road, it’s certainly not a recent development!

The point is that a lot of the issues worthy of addressing have never actually been part of any legal challenge so there’s nothing to lose by looking into the possibility of another challenge based on the wider facts surrounding the implementation of the legislation as opposed to the post implementation impact!

[StellaFan]

I hadn't checked this thread for a week and then arrived home to a gloating hmrc letter. "Shocked" is an appropriate word.
Kind of glad I had that week of blissful ignorance.