BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[BarneyCool]

If you dig out the appeals of your Closure Notices, you should find that MP have cited different grounds of appeal where discovery was used.

Since there are quite a lot of people in this situation, there are likely to be specific test cases for this.

HMRC have had previous success in defending the use of discovery in court, so do not underestimate the difficulty in winning this argument.

Also, bear in mind what you would be up against. HMRC will almost certainly be represented by one or more leading Tax QC.

Can you afford to match their firepower?

Could'nt even afford a stamp to send the letters off.
If the scheme was fully disclosed on the self assesment forms then how can they use discovery? You told them about it all along!!!

[RingStinger]

Letter sent to my MP, John Redwood. He stated in a previous reply to me that he found the whole retrospective thing troubling, so lets see what he says now we're a year further down the line...

[BolshieBastard]

If you dig out the appeals of your Closure Notices, you should find that MP have cited different grounds of appeal where discovery was used.

What do you mean dig out the appeals on your CN's!?

MP never told \ informed me on what grounds they appealed mine, nor sent any docs to me.

[Dieselpower]

What do you mean dig out the appeals on your CN's!?

MP never told \ informed me on what grounds they appealed mine, nor sent any docs to me.

same applies to me actually - I have not seen any documents whatsoever relating to my position! MP handled everything presumably and never sent me copies of anything

[sjw]

If you dig out the appeals of your Closure Notices, you should find that MP have cited different grounds of appeal where discovery was used.

Since there are quite a lot of people in this situation, there are likely to be specific test cases for this.

HMRC have had previous success in defending the use of discovery in court, so do not underestimate the difficulty in winning this argument.

Also, bear in mind what you would be up against. HMRC will almost certainly be represented by one or more leading Tax QC.

Can you afford to match their firepower?

wasn't there a case of a few closure notices dismissed because the correct procedure hadn't been followed? how do we check to see if our own notices were issued correctly? interestingly I only recall seeing notices for 3 out of the 5 years my online tax account states I owe...

DR - given you seem to have the most reliable contact with MP do you know if they are actually doing anything? Or do we assume the worst - we're on our own and at the mercy of HMRC?

[reckless]

Letters and HMRC Protocol

When writing letters to MPs etc. don't forget to mention that Section 58 is actually at odds with HMRC's own document which deals with the announcement of tax changes;

http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/2011bu...xavoidance.pdf


The document is dated March 2011, but as ours is still (at the moment anyway) an ongoing case, assuming Montpelier will stand by their commitment to go to ECHR, it should apply. Even if our case is deemed close, it is then still further hypocrisy to make Section 58 retrospective, but not an HMRC document that addresses the very matter.

In that case, we would be being uniquely and unfairly targeted as a group (since no-one before or since would have been so treated), thus opening up a whole new front on the Human Rights argument when going to ECHR.

[OldITGit]

Interesting Document

I notice that section A5 states

"A.5 Key points raised by respondents to the consultation were:
• support for the commitment that a change in legislation taking effect from a date
before the date of its announcement would be ‘wholly exceptional’;"

Surely sitting on your hands for a number of years, without taking action would be classed as "wholly exceptional"
Oig

[Dieselpower]

When writing letters to MPs etc. don't forget to mention that Section 58 is actually at odds with HMRC's own document which deals with the announcement of tax changes;

http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/2011bu...xavoidance.pdf


The document is dated March 2011, but as ours is still (at the moment anyway) an ongoing case, assuming Montpelier will stand by their commitment to go to ECHR, it should apply. Even if our case is deemed close, it is then still further hypocrisy to make Section 58 retrospective, but not an HMRC document that addresses the very matter.

In that case, we would be being uniquely and unfairly targeted as a group (since no-one before or since would have been so treated), thus opening up a whole new front on the Human Rights argument when going to ECHR.

Thats a very good find - cheers for that. Gauke really has a lot to answer for.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

What do you mean dig out the appeals on your CN's!?

MP never told \ informed me on what grounds they appealed mine, nor sent any docs to me.

It's a couple of years ago so I can't remember for sure but maybe I asked MP for copies.

Anyway, there were two wordings of appeals:
1) Human Rights etc.
2) Discovery

[p4nd4b34r]

If you dig out the appeals of your Closure Notices, you should find that MP have cited different grounds of appeal where discovery was used.

Since there are quite a lot of people in this situation, there are likely to be specific test cases for this.

HMRC have had previous success in defending the use of discovery in court, so do not underestimate the difficulty in winning this argument.

Also, bear in mind what you would be up against. HMRC will almost certainly be represented by one or more leading Tax QC.

Can you afford to match their firepower?

as other posters have noted.. ive never seen the appeals..
your right. I must stick with MP mustnt I... after all they've got a great track record on this so far..
1. they picked the wrong fight.. 2. they shut down bloody company which was my only chance of recovering fees already paid.. 3. the deafening silence.. yeah MP sure are the guys to take care of it...