Tax Needn't Be Taxing

My saga with HMRC continues apace. I just received a two-pager from them this morning threatening court action not once but twice. I reminded them in my reply that I was up for it.
 
Regular readers will know that I keep referring to this all as an illusion. It is The Matrix in all but name. We are fed sludge and we are told that we are scarfing down finest Aberdeen Angus steak.

The only tool they have in the box is a hammer. I refuse to be a nail.


Wrap your eyes around this. (I nicked the main body of my Notice from a post which was written by Mike, who comments here). It lays out the case clearly, with references to Hansard and even some case law. I adapted it slightly to suit my needs, and I added a couple of demands of my own. One of which was for HMRC to return all taxes paid by me since 1978. I have removed any personal information for erm, personal reasons. None of it is germane to this blog entry. I also removed the name of the person I am writing to in HMRC's Solicitors Office.

My reply:


"I refer to your letter dated 5th July in which you quote Acts of Parliament. You state repeatedly that I have put forth no legal argument. This Notice adds to the points I have raised previously. Your ignorance of what Lawful Rebellion means is no defence. It is not my job to educate you but I will remind you that Lawful Rebellion is my obligation as a sovereign. In short, HM Queen has violated her Coronation Oath and I am obliged, along with every other Briton, to correct that. One method, the ultimate method, is to enter Lawful Rebellion. Taking this severe action, as afforded to me under the law of the land, removes me from any obligation to obey any statutes that were given Royal Assent.



I REMIND YOU THAT THUS FAR, NO CONTROVERSY EXISTS. I HAVE NOT REFUSED TO SETTLE THE AMOUNT YOU SAY IS OUTSTANDING, I AM MERELY ASKING IF YOU HAVE THE LEGAL, AND LAWFUL RIGHT, TO MAKE SUCH DEMANDS.



The remainder of this Notice explains why you do not have any right to demand any money from me.

Anyone who has paid income tax corporation tax for the last six years has done so without the sanction of an Act of Parliament, in other words, the taxes were deducted illegally.

We can only be taxed with the assent of Parliament. That means a taxation or finance Bill has to be passed by both Houses of Parliament and receive royal assent. It then becomes an Act. It is then legal.

The grievance which the Bill of Rights 1869 sought to correct was this: By Levying Money for and to the Use of the Crown by pretence of Prerogative for other time and in other manner than the same was granted by Parlyament.

This was the remedy as laid down in article 4 of the Bill of Rights. That levying Money for or to the Use of the Crowne by pretence of Prerogative without Grant of Parlyament for longer time or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted is Illegall.

As you can see, the remedy was that it was declared illegal to raise money by the use of the Prerogative without the grant of Parliament, or in other words the assent of both houses.

Income Tax Act was nearly always passed and received the Royal Assent before the 5th April until 1861, when all taxation was put into one Finance Act. A practice then arose which was subsequently declared to be illegal, the practice of making these deductions without having any legislative authority in the shape of an Act of Parliament for the purpose.

That practice was declared illegal in the judgment in the case of Bowles v Bank of England 1913. The following is from Hansard on March 18th 1913:

From 1861 until 1910 it was usual to have the Finance Act of the year passed within three or four months of the 5th April. That was the general rule. There were not many exceptions to it. But this Government in 1910–[HON. MEMBERS: "1909."]—I am speaking of 1910; with regard to 1909 no difficulty arose, but with regard to 1910 the Government did not pass the Finance Act until the 28th November. In 1911, when there could not have been a shadow of an excuse for not passing the Finance Act within a reasonable time, it only received the Royal Assent on 16th December. That is what led to this practice, which had hitherto been regarded by the public at large as legal, being called into question, and a modern John Hampden arose in the shape of Mr. Gibson Bowles. I believe we have only two bulwarks to the liberty of the subject left, and these are Mr. Gibson Bowles and the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury). We must rely upon them to protect our liberties from departmental and Governmental aggression. I am sure that the nation owes a debt of gratitude to Mr. Gibson Bowles for the trouble which he took and the ingeniousness of the arguments which he used, which proved demonstratively that this action, which had hitherto generally supposed to be legal, was contrary to almost every fundamental statute from Magna Charta down to the Bill of Rights. The decision was given on the 4th November last. An entirely new situation arose when that decision was given. I believe the Government have accepted it, and it is not under appeal. From that moment it was known that after 5th April no person in the United Kingdom would have the right to deduct a farthing of Income Tax from any interest or any rent or any dividend from any salary until the Finance Act of the year had received the Royal Assent.

A few weeks later, on 7th April 1913, the Lord Chancellor introduced an ingenious and novel idea to get round their practice which had been declared illegal. He proposed to pass an Act declaring that a Resolution of the committee of ways and means would have the force of an Act of Parliament.

The following is from a debate on that date.

Sir A Cripps.

It really is an unparalleled suggestion to find in a Resolution dealing with the financial system of a free country and a free people. I am quite aware that this is a business matter, but there is no excuse in dealing with a business matter to interfere with what I consider to be the fundamental ideas of the free life and free liberties in this country. I will never assent, as far as I am concerned, whatever the Front Benches may do, to this unconstitutional doctrine that you may by a mere Resolution of this House have a charge put on the subject which, according to our historical evolution, cannot be put on without you have what is known as an Act of Parliament, that is the assent in legal form by his representatives in a proper manner and by the other Chamber. On those grounds I am opposed to the whole of this Resolution.

Mr Cassel.

I should like to say a word or two with regard to the wideness of this Resolution. The House ought to appreciate that this is not an ordinary Financial Resolution. What is suggested is the partial repeal of a fundamental Statute of this country. It may be easy to laugh at the mention of the Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights, or statutum de tallagio non concedendo. But this case was decided on the very ground that it was an infringement of the Bill of Rights, and you are departing by this Resolution from a Statute which purports to lay down the fundamental rights and liberties of the subject, and not only that but the conditions upon which the Crown holds its office. The fundamental terms on which William and Mary were invited to accept the sovereignty of this realm were laid down in a Statute which did not deal simply with the acts of the Crown itself, but deals with acts of "evil counsellors and Ministers" as they are called in the Statute. It is against evil counsellors and Ministers that the Statute is directed rather than against the Crown itself. It refers to divers counsellors, judges, and Ministers who endeavoured to subvert the laws and liberties of the Kingdom.
The fourth point put forward in the Bill of Rights acts contrary to the fundamental right and liberties of the Kingdom, such as levying money for the use of the Crown by pretence of the prerogative for a longer time or in any other manner than the same is or shall be granted is illegal. I do submit that when a Resolution which strikes at the fundamental law of the realm is brought before this House, we ought not simply pass it in the general terms in which it appears upon the Paper. Supposing we have a Resolution here that, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient for the Chancellor of the Exchequer in future to levy taxes in any manner in which he thinks fit without a word from the House of Commons, are we to pass it because he says, "I am going to put it all right in my Bill"? I submit it is not right for the House of Commons to pass a Resolution of this kind contrary to the fundamental rights and liberties of the subject. I say to put this Motion upon the Journals of the House would be discreditable. I agree we have to do something, but consider how far this goes. We are asked to say in effect that any taxes whatever passed by Committee of Ways and Means and never brought to the knowledge of the House itself, but passed by a mere Resolution of Ways and Means, shall have a statutory effect for a limited period without defining the limited period—that is to say, you might never have the necessity for an Act at all. Under this Resolution as it stands you are subverting the Bill of Rights to the extent that you are doing away altogether with the necessity for an Act of Parliament.

Since 1913, no Act has been passed to sanction any form of taxation , merely a Resolution given statutory effect by the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act of that same year. The Resolution purports to make legal what was declared by the Court to be, (and still is) illegal, that is, taxation without sanction of Parliament.



All of which is pretty damning. I do, however, have an alternative for you. I remind you of the legal maxim “He who creates the liability must also bring the remedy”.



Bring me the remedy.

Without ill-will, etc etc, 

Captain: of the Ranty family"




The remedy I am seeking involves me signing a piece of paper. No cash leaves my account and ends up in theirs. An additional point (not yet made to HMRC) is that what they issue are not bills as described in the Bills of Exchange Act, and are fraudulent in and of themselves. They call them "Demands", but under the BoE Act they need to look like bills. They do not, so I cannot pay them.
 
The short story is this: if all statutes relating specifically to taxation are illegal, then the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. If they don't have a firm foundation, then they have nothing.

I'll let you know what they say.


CR.