Blogger
Share this content
0
4
1376

In bankruptcy has HMRC acting outside the law .

In Section 28 C TMA, 1970 " Proceedings" only applies in "Proceedings" to the Tax Commissioners  AKA now  the Tax Tribunals 1st Tier and Upper Tax Tribunals.

At the Tax Tribunal in my case the Judge rejected the demand  in  HMRC's case because the amount of £ 765.08,   like a tax determination or a NI "decision" had not been served , therefore,  it was unenforcible in law.

The requirment for  Bankruptcy is that  the amounts were "due and payable" in the bankruptcy petition at is date sworn..

Not "due and payable" means that the Bankruptcy Petition, as sworn, was incorrect and that  is not permitted under for the Perjury Act, 1911 - not a Statement of Truth. becomes "null and void".

This is significant in all bankruptcy cases brought to you.

If anyone disagrees please say why in response.

Joe

Replies

Please login or register to join the discussion.

It's been a long time ... but

I was an Insolvency Practitioner in the late '80's - late '90's and, unless things have changed dramatically, do not agree with the assertion that a sworn statement of affairs is in contravention of the Perjury Act where it contains errors.

An estimated statement of affairs is just that, an estimate of the amounts due by the debtor to his creditors.  Subsequent to the order being granted, the Trustee (or Official Receiver) invites a proof of debt to be submitted (with supporting evidence if contested).

Both with IVA's and Bankruptcies; I cannot remember (out of hundreds), one case where the statement of affairs was even within 15% of the eventual proved debt. 

The words "due and payable" do not form part of a debtor's petition, rather a more general statement that the debtor is unable to pay his debts (as and when they fall due) and is thus insolvent. 

 

 

Thanks (0)

Things ain't what they used to be nthe times theyare a changing.

The law hangs on the truth, the full truth and nothing but the truth,  so help me God..

 

When HMRC makes a sworn Affidavit that the debts as listed are "DUE AND PAYABLE and it is a sworn statement of truth and it is not; then that is Perjury under that Act of 1911.

Thanks (0)

If you know better, why ask?

Why not try an application to annul the Order? 

Thanks (0)

Rvenue Fraud.

I have, up to the High Court, unsuccessfully, so far.

So onwards and upwards to the Court of Appeal.

I shall win.

I write to help others, no more no less as you would also do.

 

KR

Joe Hannigan.

Thanks (0)