Is it really worth having all this fuss and bother about the Human Rights Bill? Over the years the Convention has been interpreted to require United Kingdom courts to change their practices in various ways at the personal level, but what about protecting a person from an unjustified demand for tax? Suppose that the Inland Revenue demands tax from you which the courts later determine to be unlawful because the regulation under which the demand was made was not valid. You were not a party to that litigation but you are clearly within the ambit of the decision supplied by the courts. The Inland Revenue then persuades Parliament to deprive you of the benefit of the decision by retroactive legislation, although leaving the actual party to the litigation with the fruits of that enterprise. Is this the stuff on which the judges at Strasbourg will rush to protect the taxpayer from the State? The answer sadly is no — these judges are not going to risk embarrassing the contracting States by making rights bite where that would be expensive: National Provincial Building Society and others v. United Kingdom [1997] S.T.C. 1466. Of course these judges may fear that contracting States would reduce the powers of the court were they do so such a thing; such a fear would not be irrational since the German and UK Governments proposed that direct tax matters should be removed from the European Court of Justice in the sessions leading to the Treaty of Amsterdam. Perhaps a supra-national body is right to be cautious, but what should our own courts do? Once the Convention is incorporated into our domestic law, will our own judges feel a little more strongly about the matter and perhaps grant a declaration that the legislation is incompatible with the Convention? If they have a right to be incensed about the way in which Parliament protects the Revenue at the expense (literally) of the taxpayer, will they do something or will they just couch like lions under the throne of Parliamentary Sovereignty?