Understandably the most frequently expressed inquiry concerns the risks one runs if one faces HMRC and Councils with one’s individual Declaration and Deed. What is the success rate, if there is one?

So far, nobody has been brought to court on the basis of the Trust Deed. What is becoming clear is that authorities are ignoring this document and proceeding with tax collection.

It appears that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) is currently hesitant or unwilling to pursue legal action regarding the Trust Deed issue in court. For HMRC, the decision to challenge this matter in court involves weighing the potential benefits against the risks, especially if other legal actions are brought against the UK government concerning its activities in Gaza, the West Bank, and Yemen. Should these actions find the government in breach of ratified international law or acting unlawfully, it could complicate matters further.

If a court case arises concerning the setting aside of taxes that are known to be funding war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide, any judge who might consider ruling in favor of HMRC would face a challenging scenario. Such a ruling would effectively need to assert that current legislation can legally compel taxpayers to financially support activities deemed illegal or criminal under international law. This would raise fundamental questions about the legality and morality of collecting taxpayer funds to invest in wars of aggression and the methods of collection.

Remember: It is the government that is breaking international law.

Those who set aside their taxes in a Trust are neither bankrupt nor willfully refusing to pay taxes; after all, the UK Government is the Primary Beneficiary. The funds remain theirs, provided they can demonstrate adherence to the international agreements they have ratified.

This method is not about evading responsibility, on the contrary; the aim is to ensure the government fulfills its commitments to international law and protect the taxpayer from complicity. As established during the Nuremberg Trials, the defence of “just following orders” does not absolve individuals or institutions from accountability when those orders contravene legal or ethical standards.

Note on council tax Liability Orders:

In the case of Leighton v Bristow & Sutor 2023. The council instructed debt collectors to act without providing them with a valid authority in the shape of a court order, rendering the debt collectors impotent. On 21st September, the High Court in KBD Swansea ruled in favour of Mr. Leighton, awarding him £4,000 against debt collectors Bristow & Sutor, who were acting in conjunction with the City of York Council. The case exposed an unlawful Council Tax debt collection process for which Mr. Leighton was entitled to damages. 

This is now case law.