S660: Impact of Artic on Company Set-ups?

[tim123]

Re: Errm...

Sorry mailmnnz, I cannot have a conversation with you on this because we disagree on a fundamental point which makes all the rest meaningless.

I don't believe that there is any political interference whatsoever (direct or indirect) with the judiciary on this issue.

ISTM that the judge has reached his conclusions in law, based upon a disinterested reading of 80 year old legislation and 50 year old case law (established about income sharing with minor children) re-applied to incoming sharing with a spouse (which until the era of separate assessment achieved nothing, and was therefore never an issue).

If you are convinced that he has come to the conclusion that he did, based upon some political bias them it is pointless proceeding further.

The government don't need to put pressure on judges in such matters. If they don't like the result that they get, then they can simply change the law, so why bother?

tim

[malvolio]

Re: Errm...

See, you're still doing it... Wake up and smell the coffee.

The grounds of the appeal are, I suspect, more to do with the original perverse conclusion and the equally perverse upholding of the decision, which was supported in the ruling (have you read it, by the way) by disregarding swathes of argument supporting the Arctic position, and also introduced new concepts (which, incidentally, is also wrong since the appeal has to be based on arguments in the original case only)

The only possible conclusions - given that Parks J is not corrupt, which I do not believe for a minute he is - are that either he is incompetent (unlikely) or he is refelcting the will of Parliament in his interpretation of the law so as to support the IR's position contrary to the evidence cited. This latter option is what seems most probable, so we are forced to conclude the judiciary are demonstrably politically motivated.

In his defence, he may well believe that Arctic were deliberately bending the regulations to minimise their tax liability, but he should also know that this is not illegal, and is condoned both by existing practice and ministerial pronouncement. Equally it does seem not have occurred to him to ask why the IR have resurrected an obscure 50 year old law to attack a company previously found to have "escaped" IR35 and why, if it is a matter of legality, why the IR have dropped their claim against Arctic for the previous 6 years if that tax was also "illegally" withheld.

[mailmannz]

Re: Errm...

You didnt answer my question Tim...who determines what the going rate is for any particular task? The IR?

As Malvo said, I doubt this guy is incompetent but his ruling does ask a lot of questions on just how he could have got there without taking in to account the process used. However, if the guy is incompetent then this opens up a whole new can o worms!

Mailman

[tim123]

Re: Errm...

Mailman, I told you why I didn't answer the question. The courts will decide what set of conditions (of which the salary paid to the fee earner is just one) stops the payment being bounteous, but as you seem to believe that the judges are in Gordo's pocket you won't see this as being any different to the IR doing it (even though it is). There is no point discussing this further on this basis.

Malvolio, was your question aimed at me? Do you really think that I would spend an hour and a half of my time creating a well considered response to your original question without my having read the judgment three times to make sure that I fully understood it?

However, it seems that you have not. The original perverse judgment is now a dead issue. It says so in para 6. And this decision was not taken by the judge, but by Gammie. (The judge did decline to rule on the issue, but Gammie had said that he would like this for future reference, not for application on this appeal). AIUI Gammie cannot now raise this issue again.

I agree with you that it appears that Park has created some of his justification from evidence that didn't appear in the original judgment, but as I haven't seen any of the evidence (only a 3 page summary) can't be sure that it wasn't introduced by the revenue at the start.

Both of you. It seems that it will come as a surprise to you that 50% of the time that a brief stands up in court the judge decides that his evidence is legally wrong. This proves nothing about the thought processes of the judge.

I concede that he might be wrong in law (I have never said otherwise, my claim in this thread was that his judgment was clear), I don't agree with your reasons as to why. Perhaps the appeal will help us find out.

tim

[mailmannz]

Re: Errm...

Mailman, I told you why I didn't answer the question. The courts will decide what set of conditions (of which the salary paid to the fee earner is just one) stops the payment being bounteous, but as you seem to believe that the judges are in Gordo's pocket you won't see this as being any different to the IR doing it (even though it is). There is no point discussing this further on this basis.

Stop being evasive and answer the question...who determines what the going rate is?

And no...it is your opinion that I believe they judges are in gordo's back pocket, which you are using conveniently to avoid answering a simple question.

Mailman

[tim123]

Re: Errm...

I did answer the question.

Perhaps you should read my answers more slowly in future.

tim

[mailmannz]

Re: Errm...

Sorry mailmnnz, I cannot have a conversation with you on this because we disagree on a fundamental point which makes all the rest meaningless.

Ah yes...here it is :rollin

Regards

Mailman

[tim123]

Re: Errm...

Very funny

"The courts will decide what set of conditions (of which the salary paid to the fee earner is just one) stops the payment being bounteous"

tim