By the way, there was a statement made a few weeks ago that Montpellier were submitting their own application to ECHR. Does anyone know if that was submitted and when ? Are there any time limit concerns with it ?
-
-
-
Yes, Montpelier have applied to the ECtHR in Strasbourg.Originally posted by travellingknob View Post
The time limit was 6 months from the date the Supreme Court refused our leave to appeal, and I'm informed it was submitted on time.
I am also told they used one of the top Human Rights lawyers in the country to prepare the application.
Lord Pannick QC - Blackstone Chambers
David Pannick, Baron Pannick - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaComment
-
Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View Post
Are there any rough guesstimates of timescales? Any info you can give publicly much appreciated.Comment
-
See Page 5.Originally posted by BrilloPad View Post
Are there any rough guesstimates of timescales? Any info you can give publicly much appreciated.
http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres...nd_Answers.pdf
The first stage is that a single Judge decides if the application is admissible. This could take up to a year, although in Steed/KPMG's case it took 3½ years before their application was kicked out!
If you get past the admissibility stage, then you join a very long queue which could take many years, possibly even a decade or more.
PS. no reason was given as to why Steed's application was rejected but I think it's safe to assume it was because they hadn't exhausted domestic remedies (see page 4 of the above)Last edited by DonkeyRhubarb; 7 September 2012, 08:20.Comment
-
A good response from my MP
My MP has just sent me a letter apologising for his lack of response.
He has given me a copy of the letter he has sent to Mr Gauke. It's brief and I believe very much to the point:
"Dear David,
Please see enclosed an email from my above named constituent.
As you will be aware from my previous correspondence, Mr X is extremely concerned about this issue having been personally affected. A number of other constituents have also been affected having gone into the scheme in good faith.
I would urge you to meet with the group and respond to the points they raise as soon as possible.
Thank you in advance for your assistance"Comment
-
FOI requests
1) One-third of trusts were never used
Ask yourselves this. It cost everyone who used the scheme c. £1000 each to establish their IoM trust. How likely is it that over 1000 people would do this and never use the scheme, as claimed by HMRC? According to the main scheme promoters only a tiny number of people never used their trusts. HMRC's figure of 1900 under enquiry is a gross understatement of the number of people who actually used the scheme.
2) Closure Notices issued on 9th March 2006
It will be interesting to see how far they are prepared to go to try and wriggle out of answering this. Not that it matters though because we have got hard evidence that they accepted claims, and not just in March 2006.Last edited by DonkeyRhubarb; 7 September 2012, 12:31.Comment
-
It would be unfortunate if 1100 people suddenly got closure notices!Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View Post
Seriously - I know what you mean. HMRC have cleared 1100 people to use the scheme.Comment
-
HMRC have already got their hands full taking 1900 through the tax courts. There is no way they will go looking for more.Originally posted by BrilloPad View PostIt would be unfortunate if 1100 people suddenly got closure notices!
Seriously - I know what you mean. HMRC have cleared 1100 people to use the scheme.
In any case, they appear to have already started conceding that the enquiries they opened under discovery (after the 12-month enquiry window) were not valid.
Anyone who has not been investigated so far is almost certainly in the clear.Comment
-
really? thats the first ive heard of it.. thats 50% of my liability..awsome if it pans outOriginally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View PostComment
Comment