BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[BrilloPad]

Firstly, I am not a Troll.
Secondly, I was visited by someone who indicated he was from HMRC.
Thirdly, he did a runner when I meantioned my MP.
Fourthly, I thought people on this forum might be gererally interested.
Fifthly, I thought it was professional people on this forum, until you appeared.
Sixth. I think I'll search for the genuine 2,990 fellow contractors who I was hoping to be able to communicate with.
Seventh. Goodbye and happy scouring, Numpty.

I sent you a PM and you did not respond. Why?

Look at this from other people's viewpoint. There have been alot of trolls here - especially in the early days. Of the 3000 affected probably 300 are going to go bankrupt. The debt collectors have been sent round once where HMRC lost the appeal causing extreme distress. I think most of the 3000 affected are very green - I have seen the police many times deliberately flout the law. But I am 90% sure you were trolling before the above post and now I am 99% sure.

I would prefer to chat about this via PM - is that okay with you?

[moira under the stairs]

Firstly, I am not a Troll.
Secondly, I was visited by someone who indicated he was from HMRC.
Thirdly, he did a runner when I meantioned my MP.
Fourthly, I thought people on this forum might be gererally interested.
Fifthly, I thought it was professional people on this forum, until you appeared.
Sixth. I think I'll search for the genuine 2,990 fellow contractors who I was hoping to be able to communicate with.
Seventh. Goodbye and happy scouring, Numpty.

Steady on cock.....
yes people on this forum would be generally (spelling correct) interested if its true...
yes the majority of people on this forum are professional, apart from those who know they are not !
Brillo has 55k + postings you have 5, I think he has a point in trying to establish if you are genuine....
It does seem a little surprising to have a black bearded leather clad person on your door step claiming to be from HMRC... sure it wasn't the biker from Rouge traders ?

[Morlock]

Firstly, I am not a Troll.
Secondly, I was visited by someone who indicated he was from HMRC.
Thirdly, he did a runner when I meantioned my MP.
Fourthly, I thought people on this forum might be gererally interested.
Fifthly, I thought it was professional people on this forum, until you appeared.
Sixth. I think I'll search for the genuine 2,990 fellow contractors who I was hoping to be able to communicate with.
Seventh. Goodbye and happy scouring, Numpty.

Hi Hot Patsy,
If you have this bloke's card and number why don't you
(a) google him and verify he is who he says he is?
(b) phone him up and politely ask where you should send any written communications to?
If he is genuine you will soon know.

P.S. If you're worried about (b), PM me his details and I will gladly do this under my own name.

[SantaClaus]

chill out man, to be fair your story does seem a bit weird, but maybe HMRC are hiring the Village people to do there debt collection nowadays, wouldnt put anything past them. In fact I had a guy dressed as an Indian brave at my door yesterday asking for money with menaces..

That's nothing. I had a double glazing salesman, 3 Jehova's witnesses and a guy selling "fresh" fish.

[OldITGit]

Pah think that's good

That's nothing. I had a double glazing salesman, 3 Jehova's witnesses and a guy selling "fresh" fish.

I had a phonecall from some company trying to sell me a conservatory.......and I live in a first floor flat......................

[Ninja]

I had a phonecall from some company trying to sell me a conservatory.......and I live in a first floor flat......................

At the weekend, my lad shouted to me that there was a man at the door with a bill. It turned out to be a duck with a hat on.

Boom Boom

I also do requests.......

[BolshieBastard]

At the weekend, my lad shouted to me that there was a man at the door with a bill. It turned out to be a duck with a hat on.

Boom Boom

LOL!

I also do requests.......

Can you ride tandem?

[nick4notax]

Aside from tax-burdened hot snacks....

Isn't it a great pity (or arguably a dis-service) that no MP has yet stood up to propose Section 58 amendment to limit retro effects to after law was passed. See here: BBC - Democracy Live - House of Commons

[Fireship]

Reply from Gauke's office

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!!!

[screwthis]

P1ss take

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”

So? Of course HMRC would consider their own position. Doesn't mean it did or didn't "work".

• “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.”
  

We are not asking them to interfere with that decision.