BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[SantaClaus]

Some more light chatter.

I know someone who always used to put "Your ref:KMIT" on letters to the Inland Revenue.

It stands for the Yiddish phrase "Kish Mir In Tuchas" or Kiss My Arse

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

A quote from history

This case in 1869 set the framework for how tax law is ruled upon by the Courts.

Partington v. Attorney-General (1869), L.R. 4 E. & I. App. 100, per Lord Cairns at p. 122 where his Lordship said:

If the person sought to be taxed comes within the letter of the law he must be taxed, however great the hardship may appear to the judicial mind to be. On the other hand, if the Crown, seeking to recover the tax, cannot bring the subject within the letter of the law, the subject is free, however apparently within the spirit of the law the case might otherwise appear to be. In other words, if there be admissible, in any statute what is called an equitable construction, certainly such a construction is not admissible in a taxing statute.


Now based on that, if a person interprets the law in such a way that he may not be within the letter of the law and through interpretation of it cannot be brought within the letter, then he is free. As BN66 has to clarify the law on which the Scheme operated then by definition it is open to interpretation. It is therefore not the letter of the law on which the matter is to be judged but the interpretation of it.

It is likely that this is a key reason HMRC never sought litigation hence the need to apply legislation to remove the manner in which Courts would judge from the equation.

It appears that Lord Cairns comments have been regularly applied by our judiciary ever since.

Note, this ruling from 1869 has been the basis on which courts make rulings on matters of tax legislation since then. Over to the judge in the JR.

[swede]

Thats....

This case in 1869 set the framework for how tax law is ruled upon by the Courts.

Partington v. Attorney-General (1869), L.R. 4 E. & I. App. 100, per Lord Cairns at p. 122 where his Lordship said:

If the person sought to be taxed comes within the letter of the law he must be taxed, however great the hardship may appear to the judicial mind to be. On the other hand, if the Crown, seeking to recover the tax, cannot bring the subject within the letter of the law, the subject is free, however apparently within the spirit of the law the case might otherwise appear to be. In other words, if there be admissible, in any statute what is called an equitable construction, certainly such a construction is not admissible in a taxing statute.


Now based on that, if a person interprets the law in such a way that he may not be within the letter of the law and through interpretation of it cannot be brought within the letter, then he is free. As BN66 has to clarify the law on which the Scheme operated then by definition it is open to interpretation. It is therefore not the letter of the law on which the matter is to be judged but the interpretation of it.

It is likely that this is a key reason HMRC never sought litigation hence the need to apply legislation to remove the manner in which Courts would judge from the equation.

It appears that Lord Cairns comments have been regularly applied by our judiciary ever since.

Note, this ruling from 1869 has been the basis on which courts make rulings on matters of tax legislation since then. Over to the judge in the JR.

.....awesome

[ASB]

How about an old joke to lighten the mood?

"What do a duck, a pelican and HMRC have in common?"

"They can all stick their bills up their arses".


hehe.

A new arrival, about to enter the hospital, saw two white coated doctors searching through the flower beds.

"Excuse me," he said, "have you lost something?"

"No," replied one of the doctors. "We're doing a heart transplant for an income-tax inspector and want to find a suitable stone."

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Apparently the Government did us a favour

Jane Kennedy's letter to CIOT last year.

http://www.tax.org.uk/attach.pl/7249...nedy080708.pdf

"Clause 55 is therefore a provision that clarifies this situation and enables taxpayers to avoid lengthy and fruitless litigation."

So, the Government assumes the role of the judiciary, decides that we can't win, and legistates to save us wasting our time going to court.

How considerate of them.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

HMRC - New Nu Supreme Court

Jane Kennedy's letter to CIOT last year.

http://www.tax.org.uk/attach.pl/7249...nedy080708.pdf

"Clause 55 is therefore a provision that clarifies this situation and enables taxpayers to avoid lengthy and fruitless litigation."

So, the Government assumes the role of the judiciary, decides that we can't win, and legistates to save us wasting our time going to court.

How considerate of them.

Yeah Dr. If she wants to use the word "lengthy" then I think it applies rather well to the time it took them reach their Judge, Jury and Executioner position of BN66 (7 years). I think that through the Courts it would haave taken about 5 minutes to prove what a load of cobblers their position was / is. So we obviosuly don't need the Courts, we've got Parliament (or rather Labour) to do the job for us. Nice...

[Emigre]

Yeah Dr. If she wants to use the word "lengthy" then I think it applies rather well to the time it took them reach their Judge, Jury and Executioner position of BN66 (7 years). I think that through the Courts it would haave taken about 5 minutes to prove what a load of cobblers their position was / is. So we obviosuly don't need the Courts, we've got Parliament (or rather Labour) to do the job for us. Nice...

I'm fast moving to a position where I will not be satisfied with a win at the JR setting a precedent that outlaws retrospective tax legislation - I'm starting to want proper revenge against the perpetrators of this injustice. Any person in a position of authority who sets out to orchestrate and participate in this travesty of justice deserves what ever comes their way. These people need to be made accountable for their actions. If such events took place against say a racist backdrop they could be locked up. There is no difference - we are a minority.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I'm starting to want proper revenge against the perpetrators of this injustice.

Me too. JR first, then retribution.

[Ninja]

Retribution

Definitely!

Is an Organisation chart of HMRC public info?

[poppy01]

Me too. JR first, then retribution.

now were talking . i want heads to roll.