No To Retro Tax – Campaign Against Section 58 Finance Act 2008

[Wembley53]

Havent had an acknowledgement from Ben Wallace after I banged off another letter to him after his 'best settle up' reply!

Normally, I get an emailed acknowledgement. Strange!

Strange indeed. I emailed a request for a face to face with him and have heard diddly squat! The acknowledgement was within 24 hours last time I contacted him.

[Emigre]

Read this: Complaints Against HMRC

I cannot see which of these reasons we are in a position to invoke. To have any chance of having a case accepted by the IPCC we would need to demonstrate malicious intent in respect of discriminatory behaviour, at the very least. Yes we feel we have been picked out by the school bully and beaten up in the playground but what have we actually got to prove it? You cannot charge an institution so who's name is on the charge?

We can and will however make a complaint of maladministration and also of misfeasance in a public office. These are serious complaints and will be made in the proper way with legal representation. The Ombudsman has access to documents that have not been made available to us for whatever reason, either legitimately or potentially wilfully and wrongfully withheld from us.

These things take time so please bear with us on this. We are not in this for the short term. We will continue to gnaw away at the perpetrators until we get a truly fair and proportionate outcome, not what is claimed to be such.

[moira under the stairs]

These things take time so please bear with us on this. We are not in this for the short term. We will continue to gnaw away at the perpetrators until we get a truly fair and proportionate outcome


Oy Bully-boys you should be realising now that you are not untouchable..... you have put this upon yourselves

[BarneyCool]

What about this bit..

I cannot see which of these reasons we are in a position to invoke. To have any chance of having a case accepted by the IPCC we would need to demonstrate malicious intent in respect of discriminatory behaviour, at the very least. Yes we feel we have been picked out by the school bully and beaten up in the playground but what have we actually got to prove it? You cannot charge an institution so who's name is on the charge?

We can and will however make a complaint of maladministration and also of misfeasance in a public office. These are serious complaints and will be made in the proper way with legal representation. The Ombudsman has access to documents that have not been made available to us for whatever reason, either legitimately or potentially wilfully and wrongfully withheld from us.

These things take time so please bear with us on this. We are not in this for the short term. We will continue to gnaw away at the perpetrators until we get a truly fair and proportionate outcome, not what is claimed to be such.

Independent investigation
An independent investigation is carried out by IPCC staff into incidents that cause:

•the greatest level of public concern
•have the greatest potential to impact on communities
•have serious implications for the reputation of HMRC

[Emigre]

Independent investigation
An independent investigation is carried out by IPCC staff into incidents that cause:

•the greatest level of public concern
•have the greatest potential to impact on communities
•have serious implications for the reputation of HMRC

This is the bit that I read:

The IPCC can only deal with complaints that include one of the following serious allegations about the conduct of HMRC staff:

•staff behaviour resulting in death or serious injury
•serious assault
•serious sexual assault
•serious corruption
•criminal offence or behaviour aggravated by discriminatory behaviour
•serious arrestable offences (such as murder, rape, kidnapping and death by dangerous driving)

The IPCC only has authority for incidents occurring in England and Wales. Where an incident occurred in Scotland or Northern Ireland you should contact your local HMRC complaints team.

The IPCC has no powers to deal with less serious complaints about staff or complaints about overall HMRC policies

The role of the police is to enforce the law and to follow up where the law has been broken or is believed to have been broken. It makes sense then that we would have to prove that one or more individuals collectively or otherwise broke the law. We would need a clear cut case of that. My feeling is that we can demonstrate a catalogue of minor infractions that may or may not amount to such. It is not so cut and dried. At this time we probably do not have the strength of evidence to prove definitively that laws have been broken on an individual event basis.

We are meeting Counsel to discuss what is possible. There is no doubt in my mind that we have a solid case for maladministration and also for misfeasance in public office. The follow on from achieving those is that by so doing HMRC misled Parliament resulting in the situation that we are in today.
A while ago HMRC raided MontP’s offices both in the UK and IOM. From everything that has been made public in that regard it is clear that HMRC certainly acted in a disproportionate way and may have acted deceitfully in order to collect confidential information they were not entitled to. This may seem irrelevant but there is every possibility that HMRC have malicious intent toward MontP and we have been caught in the crossfire.

Involvement of the police may become appropriate following further enquiries and additional evidence coming to light. Since the No To Retro Tax group was formed there has seldom been a day when either new information or further support has not come to light. We have a veracious appetite and will continue to seek and compile more.

[TAF4]

From the same page the introductory circumstance states:
When HMRC refers a serious complaint that has been made against a member of HMRC staff to the IPCC, the IPCC will decide how the matter ought to be investigated.

I think that is the wriggle room that will make it difficult to take that route.

Which from among so many?

[Morlock]

I cannot see which of these reasons we are in a position to invoke. To have any chance of having a case accepted by the IPCC we would need to demonstrate malicious intent in respect of discriminatory behaviour, at the very least. Yes we feel we have been picked out by the school bully and beaten up in the playground but what have we actually got to prove it? You cannot charge an institution so who's name is on the charge?

We can and will however make a complaint of maladministration and also of misfeasance in a public office. These are serious complaints and will be made in the proper way with legal representation. The Ombudsman has access to documents that have not been made available to us for whatever reason, either legitimately or potentially wilfully and wrongfully withheld from us.

These things take time so please bear with us on this. We are not in this for the short term. We will continue to gnaw away at the perpetrators until we get a truly fair and proportionate outcome, not what is claimed to be such.

Hmm, hmm, if we're talking about generating publicity: a thought has just crossed my mind* about the possibility of a civil action in the courts against one or more of the individuals who have wronged us in this matter: something along the lines of "Due to Person X misleading the house of commons, a spurious piece of legislation was passed which has the potential to leave me seriously out of pocket. I therefore wish to recover damages from Person X to the tune of £Y"...

Legal views, anybody?

(*it wouldn't have far to travel admittedly)

[funjim]

thought something similar

Hmm, hmm, if we're talking about generating publicity: a thought has just crossed my mind* about the possibility of a civil action in the courts against one or more of the individuals who have wronged us in this matter: something along the lines of "Due to Person X misleading the house of commons, a spurious piece of legislation was passed which has the potential to leave me seriously out of pocket. I therefore wish to recover damages from Person X to the tune of £Y"...

Legal views, anybody?

(*it wouldn't have far to travel admittedly)

is this a way to get the truth in the courts and another way of viewing it??

[Emigre]

Hmm, hmm, if we're talking about generating publicity: a thought has just crossed my mind* about the possibility of a civil action in the courts against one or more of the individuals who have wronged us in this matter: something along the lines of "Due to Person X misleading the house of commons, a spurious piece of legislation was passed which has the potential to leave me seriously out of pocket. I therefore wish to recover damages from Person X to the tune of £Y"...

Legal views, anybody?

(*it wouldn't have far to travel admittedly)

IANAL. We will ask those that are. Again though, it becomes harder if Person X did not wrong us for personal gain. Did Person X knowingly lie? If so, what has his/her motive? Were they instructed to do so? Conspiracy? You tell me!!!

[Emigre]

is this a way to get the truth in the courts and another way of viewing it??

We didn't get the truth in the JR did we? We should assume that any future Court cases need to be black and white. X lied and did so knowingly, or at least should have known that he was lying. Not providing all the information is not strong enough, it is just part of the legal game. HMRC kept information from us that would more than likely have prejudiced their case. That makes them deceitful but then I think we knew that anyway.