Judicial Review of APN has been requested ...

[jbryce]

Any JR against primary legislation of Parliament, no matter what the grounds, will be a huge mountain to climb.

Btw, the S58 case is now in the hands of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

...really - blimey - is that for the retrospective nature of the legislation?
It's an odd one human rights and retrospective tax legislation - weighing surety of the law against the need for governments to govern against the impact on the individual of such retro legislation is a minefield.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

...really - blimey - is that for the retrospective nature of the legislation?

Aye.

[jamesbrown]

Btw, the S58 case is now in the hands of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

Without wishing to **** on anyone's parade, it seems as though HMG doesn't mind ignoring ECHR rulings. Take the case of UK prisoner voting rights; the ECHR has been handing down judgments on the illegality of that for years (including the recent one).

[webberg]

More JR challenges

https://www.uhy-uk.com/resources-pub...legality-apns/

There is a growing number of challenges against film schemes.

I predict we'll see one or more against BPRA schemes soon as well.

Unfortunately I also report that the Pinsent Mason JR position has been reviewed by various legal experts and they consider that is may have flaws. We won't know for a while. Also lawyers love to pick holes in other lawyers work so it may just be sour grapes.

[Not Losing Any Sleep]

https://www.uhy-uk.com/resources-pub...legality-apns/

There is a growing number of challenges against film schemes.

I predict we'll see one or more against BPRA schemes soon as well.

Unfortunately I also report that the Pinsent Mason JR position has been reviewed by various legal experts and they consider that is may have flaws. We won't know for a while. Also lawyers love to pick holes in other lawyers work so it may just be sour grapes.

Pinsent and Mason's detailled Grounds will be with the court and HMRC. Not having seen them, I very much doubt that other law firms would right them off.

[lilikins1]

APN s just sound wrong at face value. If you were to explain the concept to a ten year old they d tell you it s injust. 'So we haven t agreed if I owe you money but you want the money off me whilst we argue it?'. Leaving me no money to be able to argue with you?

Yeah, and semi bankrupt yourself in the process darling. Wtf.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I suspect the Government would argue "you didn't pay your fair share of tax, so don't expect to be treated fairly".

[lilikins1]

So are you saying that I should have the right to issue my neighbour an APN because I think he hasn t paid his share of the communal charges? Without proving it? When my charging system is so complicated I don t even understand it?

I m liking this concept. I may print a few APN s this morning

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I'm totally against APNs. I'm just saying that, as far as the Government are concerned, it's open season on anyone who used a scheme. Normal rights don't apply.

[Zero Liability]

So are you saying that I should have the right to issue my neighbour an APN because I think he hasn t paid his share of the communal charges? Without proving it? When my charging system is so complicated I don t even understand it?

I m liking this concept. I may print a few APN s this morning

This is generally how governments operate.

Also, the whole phrase "accused of tax avoidance" annoys me. They really are pushing the whole tax avoidance = tax evasion, where it suits them to do so, except perhaps when it comes to buying votes via ISAs and favourable pension changes.

Anyway, good luck with the whole thing. Never used any of these sort of schemes, but the powers Hector is gaining are so dangerous and prone to abuse of power that they should be challenged.