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

[smalldog]

Fascinating is not really the right word for those of us facing bankruptcy. I know what you mean.

It increases the chances of some nutter going postal.

Hi Brillo, yes I think you did know what I meant. Not fascinating to watch families lose everything, I meant purely the suing and counter suing legal battles to come, particulArly heavyweight celebs/business leaders. I think we would probably all be interested to see if there is a successful legal challenge against a scheme provider!

And yes I fully expect someone to go postal at some point.

[BrilloPad]

And yes I fully expect someone to go postal at some point.

At least when it happened before they only took themselves out. I have made it very clear to my shrink I am homicidal and suicidal. Seeing him at 1pm today.

BTW hello to all the PCGers(Mal et all) who are reading this and having a good laugh on their closed forum

[smalldog]

At least when it happened before they only took themselves out. I have made it very clear to my shrink I am homicidal and suicidal. Seeing him at 1pm today.

BTW hello to all the PCGers(Mal et all) who are reading this and having a good laugh on their closed forum

Brillo I actually get it, if I wasnt so settled down with my family and was backed into a corner then it wouldnt be a pleasant experience for those that introduced me to the corner.

And yes Mods I am not condoning violence towards anyone, or making any threats.

But I can totally understand how someone might be driven to it, if you are about to lose everything left, you may have lost the wife and kids already due to this, then you might consider the remainder worth risking for a bit of revenge. I really dont think the powers at be realise the damage some of their decisions can cause.

[SantaClaus]

Not sure if everyone saw this a few days ago:

Work programme 'incompatible' with EU human rights laws, says judge - Telegraph

The government recently lost a Judicial Review of Reilly v Department of Work & Pensions.

The judge said it was contrary to article 6 of Human Rights legislation for the govt. to enact retrospective legislation in order to win a court case.

In other word if this was applied to Section 58, the same precedent would mean s58 prevented taxpayers having their case heard under the law as it stood at the time.

Next time there is an opportunity to have a JR, APN or whatever, this precedent should be used and not article 1 as in the previous Huitson JR.

[BrilloPad]

Not sure if everyone saw this a few days ago:

Work programme 'incompatible' with EU human rights laws, says judge - Telegraph

The government recently lost a Judicial Review of Reilly v Department of Work & Pensions.

The judge said it was contrary to article 6 of Human Rights legislation for the govt. to enact retrospective legislation in order to win a court case.

In other word if this was applied to Section 58, the same precedent would mean s58 prevented taxpayers having their case heard under the law as it stood at the time.

Next time there is an opportunity to have a JR, APN or whatever, this precedent should be used and not article 1 as in the previous Huitson JR.

Any chance we can use that at the FTTT?

[lucozade]

Not sure if everyone saw this a few days ago:

Work programme 'incompatible' with EU human rights laws, says judge - Telegraph

The government recently lost a Judicial Review of Reilly v Department of Work & Pensions.

The judge said it was contrary to article 6 of Human Rights legislation for the govt. to enact retrospective legislation in order to win a court case.

In other word if this was applied to Section 58, the same precedent would mean s58 prevented taxpayers having their case heard under the law as it stood at the time.

Next time there is an opportunity to have a JR, APN or whatever, this precedent should be used and not article 1 as in the previous Huitson JR.

We were stitched up big time.

Can we not fund a JR with out collective resources or am I way off base?

[smalldog]

We were stitched up big time.

Can we not fund a JR with out collective resources or am I way off base?

I dont think we were stitched up, I think our JR went at it the wrong way completely!! We should have been going at it from the perspective of TN63 etc. rather than human rights angle!!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Human Rights

The convention has a specific concession to national Governments in the area of taxation called the "wide margin of appreciation".

Basically this means that Governments can go a lot further in infringing the rights of taxpayers before the convention is engaged. For example, retrospection is not universally prohibited.

No-one has ever won a tax case against the UK Goverment on the grounds of human rights.

Obviously, the way things are going, there will probably come a time when the Government will push it too far.

[OneUnited]

The convention has a specific concession to national Governments in the area of taxation called the "wide margin of appreciation".

Basically this means that Governments can go a lot further in infringing the rights of taxpayers before the convention is engaged. For example, retrospection is not universally prohibited.

No-one has ever won a tax case against the UK Goverment on the grounds of human rights.

Obviously, the way things are going, there will probably come a time when the Government will push it too far.

Does that mean our ECHR case is doomed to failure?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Does that mean our ECHR case is doomed to failure?

It's a long shot. It will be a hurdle even getting the application accepted. Incidentally, it's 3 years since Montpelier applied!

The fact that our Supreme Court wouldn't even hear the case is bound to influence the Strasbourg judges.