BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[SantaClaus]

I'm not even sure what the word means anymore. An ex-PM who hid his money away with smoke and mirrors so as to pay the minimum amount of tax is not criminal. To deliberately mislead Parliament is not criminal. To wine and dine with the major companies and then have a few 'oversights' letting them off with hundreds of millions is not criminal. To screw up tax collection for hundreds of thousands of old age pensioners, then force them into hardship to pay for your mistake, and not even being prepared to offer an apology is not criminal. To scheme and entrap small business people, destroying lives and families is not criminal. But be open and honest, play within the rules, fully declare and explain everything is. We'd have been better off dealing with the mafia.

And whats the betting Emma Harrison gets let off criminal charges for paying herself 87% of an £11 million dividend last year. The woman is a multi millionaire at the taxpayers expense.

Cameron's 'Family Champion' quits | News

Makes me sick to think that HMRC are robbing us of hard earned cash and asking Cameron and his public school chums to flush it down the toilet.

Stephen Hester, Emma Harrison, Dave Harnett...the cart is so full of rotten apples, it stinks!

[freedomfighter]

Britain is not a democracy nor is it a capitalist country

I agree with your comment OnYourBikeGB. It seems the bigger the financial crime the less the penalty. If a teenager steals a bottle of wine he gets sent to prison. Whilst the government and the Bank-sters steal billions – get away scott free! And to boot they don’t even have to pay their full co-operation taxes.
It's not only ex-PM many in the current government don't pay their 'fair’ share'. 22 millionaires in the cabinet - how many pay their 'fair' share. Goerge Osborne’s father has a trust for him that incurs no taxes. They spend our money on their expenses and second homes and hair do’s and we can't claim much on expenses. There is always enough for the military though. Large co-operations have headquarters in tax heavens. Surely if HMRC are so adamant to get taxes they should target those that have a lot to pay and get away with paying practically nothing! Rather than those that disclose everything.
It’s shocking that BN66 is allowed and no court of law can represent the public in this country. All the Lords in the land – how many of them pay their ‘fair’ share of taxes.
Clearly this country is not a democracy nor is it a capitalist – where small companies are
targeted and the large co-operations get away with anything – total opposite to capitalism.

If you haven't watched these I highly recommend it:
Keiser Report
The Zeitgeist Film Series Gateway | Zeitgeist: The Movie, Zeitgeist: Addendum, Zeitgeist Moving Forward

They paint the real picture of what the Bank-sters and large co-operations and governments are up to.

[Disgusted of Coventry]

I'm curious that bn66 can't just have hit us and I'm sure hmrc will commit at tt stage that they will allocate sufficient resource to trawl back thru all tax records dating back to 1987 to ensure everyone appropriate is captured, and if not I will want to know why! Surely it's 1 rule for all right?

BN66 is clearly not about equality.

I reckon the objective, here, is partly that of deterrence. That would go a long way to explaining the sheer brutality of it. If you follow the logic further, it implies that it's the very ambition of HMRC to cause as much personal distress as is possible. If that's right, then it's an extremely ugly, uncivilised strategy.

[billgilcom17]

Look for HMRC's weaknesses in each of your individual cases

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

When all else seems lost look for the HMRC errors and exploit them to your individual advantage. HMRC do make mistakes - ok don't all shout at once as I can't hear myself think - and everybody should thoroughly consider all that has happened in their enquiry to see if HMRC have relied on their usual assertion of discovery and if in fact there was none because it was all laid out for them at various stages before making their assessments etc.

Clearly they corrected their mistake in taking the test cases forward by engaging retrospective legislation so watch out for their tricks if you find the errors.

Best of Luck to you all

[Emigre]

I'm not even sure what the word means anymore. An ex-PM who hid his money away with smoke and mirrors so as to pay the minimum amount of tax is not criminal. To deliberately mislead Parliament is not criminal. To wine and dine with the major companies and then have a few 'oversights' letting them off with hundreds of millions is not criminal. To screw up tax collection for hundreds of thousands of old age pensioners, then force them into hardship to pay for your mistake, and not even being prepared to offer an apology is not criminal. To scheme and entrap small business people, destroying lives and families is not criminal. But be open and honest, play within the rules, fully declare and explain everything is. We'd have been better off dealing with the mafia.

I totally agree. We would also have been better off exading tax (yes, breaking the law) and then declaring it under one of the various Lichtenstein type amnesties.

[screwthis]

When all else seems lost look for the HMRC errors and exploit them to your individual advantage. HMRC do make mistakes - ok don't all shout at once as I can't hear myself think - and everybody should thoroughly consider all that has happened in their enquiry to see if HMRC have relied on their usual assertion of discovery and if in fact there was none because it was all laid out for them at various stages before making their assessments etc.

Clearly they corrected their mistake in taking the test cases forward by engaging retrospective legislation so watch out for their tricks if you find the errors.

Best of Luck to you all

And for the majority of us where enquiry notices were opened two days before the year expired are there any avenues to pursue? I sincerely hope the people under discovery get off the offending CNs but it leaves the others in yet another unfair situation. i.e. Hector's mistakes result in some paying and others not.

[Dieselpower]

Got MP Letter!

I am quite happy with it actually -

1. They are disappointed with result
2. They are liaising with KPMG and PWC re Strasbourg
3. Liaising with counsel also
4. Will write again when they have clear strategy
5. "In our view some action in Strasbourg will take place whether jointly or otherwise"
6. HMRC still have to deal with tribunal appeals - likely 2013

So it ain't over yet guys.

[robinhood]

I am quite happy with it actually -

1. They are disappointed with result
2. They are liaising with KPMG and PWC re Strasbourg
3. Liaising with counsel also
4. Will write again when they have clear strategy
5. "In our view some action in Strasbourg will take place whether jointly or otherwise"
6. HMRC still have to deal with tribunal appeals - likely 2013

So it ain't over yet guys.

Thanks for this - some cheer for the weekend !

[TalkingCheese]

Thursday 22nd May 2008
Two amendments tabled by Conservatives
Conservative MPs also table two amendments, stating the wish to "leave out 'are treated as always having had effect' and insert 'shall have effect from 6th April 2008'" in order to remove the retrospective element...

jvj, where did you get this from. Just getting a pack together for my MP surgery meeting...

[BrilloPad]

I am quite happy with it actually -

1. They are disappointed with result
2. They are liaising with KPMG and PWC re Strasbourg
3. Liaising with counsel also
4. Will write again when they have clear strategy
5. "In our view some action in Strasbourg will take place whether jointly or otherwise"
6. HMRC still have to deal with tribunal appeals - likely 2013

So it ain't over yet guys.

Many thanks for keeping us updated!