Judicial Review of APN has been requested ...

[StrengthInNumbers]

Yeah but we know now if HMRC lose after collecting money through APN we have a strong case to sue for damages. I hope to see PPI type process repeated with HMRC paying compensation where they got it wrong.

[MicrosoftBob]

Yeah but we know now if HMRC lose after collecting money through APN we have a strong case to sue for damages. I hope to see PPI type process repeated with HMRC paying compensation where they got it wrong.

If HMRC don't have a duty of care to tax payers, how will they be made to pay compensation ????

[lilikins1]

Well - I spoke with a specialist yesterday and he advised that there is a chance that in this APN judicial review the judge could look at the whole concept of the APN and just put the whole APN concept to sleep. Will it happen? I don't know, but I hope the judge in question gets to read the above story before making a ruling on this.

Pinsent for a fact will be citing that it's completely against Human Rights

[webberg]

Yeah but we know now if HMRC lose after collecting money through APN we have a strong case to sue for damages. I hope to see PPI type process repeated with HMRC paying compensation where they got it wrong.

I would very seriously doubt that HMRC can be made to pay damages for tax collected that is subsequently returned following defeat in Court.

There is provision for interest to be paid on tax retained by HMRC and subsequently repaid (currently 0.5% a year).

That is the usual route for what happens when HMRC has "got it wrong".

In some instances, HMRC can be forced to pay compensation or costs where they have acted beyond their remit or with particular incompetence. Those are really extreme examples normally. Damages for taking a position on a matter and testing it in Court before losing are almost unheard of. I've been doing this for close on 40 years now and have never seen an instance.

[webberg]

If HMRC don't have a duty of care to tax payers, how will they be made to pay compensation ????

Agreed. HMRC has a duty to operate the tax system.

The duty of care towards taxpayers derives from Parliament - good luck with suing them.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Well - I spoke with a specialist yesterday and he advised that there is a chance that in this APN judicial review the judge could look at the whole concept of the APN and just put the whole APN concept to sleep. Will it happen? I don't know, but I hope the judge in question gets to read the above story before making a ruling on this.

Pinsent for a fact will be citing that it's completely against Human Rights

Extremely slim chance in my opinion.

Very difficult to argue Human Rights in tax cases, especially anything to do with avoidance.

[jbryce]

Extremely slim chance in my opinion.

Very difficult to argue Human Rights in tax cases, especially anything to do with avoidance.

I agree.
You could argue the toss that collecting up front denies you the ability to prove your case in court and may also bankrupt you in a situation where you may not be 'guilty' - that would seem to be a slam dunk argument, but a JR overturning primary legislation?

[flamel]

Agreed. HMRC has a duty to operate the tax system.

The duty of care towards taxpayers derives from Parliament - good luck with suing them.

There are lots of cases where HMRC have failed in any sense of duty over the years. The general response is "tough luck". They are the type of organisation that the Magna Carta is supposed to protect the public's interest. This was effectively repealed by a certain David Gauke and team. HMRC will not care about human rights or human devastation. They care about collecting tax.

For me, one of those who face certain bankruptcy, all I want is for them to get on with it so I can stop working altogether. They won't get a penny, nor be able to tax future earning so it will cost them more than its worth. But neither they nor anyone else will give a "Donald Duck", except my kids. I encourage them to emigrate.

I used to think that Britain was a just society but since the eton mafia took over it has gone to seed. However maddening, nothing can hold them back unless you have vast wealth. Just read the papers and every day there is evidence of government corruption.

They will never pay damages even of they are guilty of gross misconduct. They will drag out proceedings for years til after your death. They are experts at all of this with years of experience.

[webberg]

There are lots of cases where HMRC have failed in any sense of duty over the years. The general response is "tough luck". They are the type of organisation that the Magna Carta is supposed to protect the public's interest. This was effectively repealed by a certain David Gauke and team. HMRC will not care about human rights or human devastation. They care about collecting tax.

For me, one of those who face certain bankruptcy, all I want is for them to get on with it so I can stop working altogether. They won't get a penny, nor be able to tax future earning so it will cost them more than its worth. But neither they nor anyone else will give a "Donald Duck", except my kids. I encourage them to emigrate.

I used to think that Britain was a just society but since the eton mafia took over it has gone to seed. However maddening, nothing can hold them back unless you have vast wealth. Just read the papers and every day there is evidence of government corruption.

They will never pay damages even of they are guilty of gross misconduct. They will drag out proceedings for years til after your death. They are experts at all of this with years of experience.

HMRC make errors all the time - millions of them every year.

Unfortunately incompetence, rubbish systems, diffident approach to duties are not enough to trigger a claim for damages.

Some Inspectors have been held accountable for actions amounting to a personal vendetta against certain taxpayers. Some have been fired and compensation paid. Even that though is defended as a "rogue" Inspector and not enough to trigger a claim.

Magna Carta says that the law applies to everyone and that nobody is above the law. It was designed to protect the privileged aristocracy from the predation of the monarchy. It was not designed to allow the peasant in medieval society to have the same rights as the aristocracy. These days the privileged in society tend to dominate/control/influence Parliament and many laws are designed with that vested interest in mind.

Not that it's any comfort but many of the wealthier in society have been under the tax avoidance cosh for coming up 10 years or more (read any decent newspaper of recent months). Some can pay the demands, some cannot. Some will pay, some will not. It may not feel like it but the HMRC crackdown is widespread.

The issue of multinational companies structured to minimise tax is separate and should not be considered an appropriate benchmark.

[lilikins1]

I would very seriously doubt that HMRC can be made to pay damages for tax collected that is subsequently returned following defeat in Court.

There is provision for interest to be paid on tax retained by HMRC and subsequently repaid (currently 0.5% a year).

That is the usual route for what happens when HMRC has "got it wrong".

In some instances, HMRC can be forced to pay compensation or costs where they have acted beyond their remit or with particular incompetence. Those are really extreme examples normally. Damages for taking a position on a matter and testing it in Court before losing are almost unheard of. I've been doing this for close on 40 years now and have never seen an instance.

If they f&&k my life up and then it s proven they re wrong they will need a United Nations binding resolution to get me off their back. Newspapers, the LOT