BN66 - JR Judgement Day

[Buzby]

keeping your home

http://www.thesun.co.uk/scotsol/home...-Bowering.html

sounds similar, but the law was probably the same in 2002 as 2008:

Documents show his debts soared from an unpaid £11,000 tax bill in 2002 to £75,545 last year

he managed to keep his home:

Last night Bowering refused to comment at his plush £345,000 villa in Livingston.

wonder how he managed that.

[Alba]

Justice Parekr said we should all pay our "fair share of tax".

Of course there is no definition of a fair share but there is such a thing as the average amount of tax.

Lets take the total tax take, (all tax including NI corporation inheritance tax etc) that is just under £400,000 million.

Total adult population about 50 million.

To save you getting you calculator out that's about £8,000 per adult. Now that what I call a fair share.

Anything over is more than a fair share, wouldn't you say.

Well my annual contribution to the UK coffers is way way in excess of that. So how woul;d Justice Parekr answer that question.

Who does he include in "that we all pay our fair share" is that just for the cannon fodder or does in include the ruling classes?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...blair-finances

"Blair has a complex web of structures involving 12 different legal entities handling the unprecedented millions he is receiving since he stepped down from office in 2007.

There is no suggestion Blair is doing anything illegal. But he refuses to explain the purpose of the secretive partnerships."

[ROBIN REDBREAST]

I agree..

Poppy....I agree..unfortunately. You have to be pessimistic and anything else as a result would be a monumnetal bonus, dont get me wrong, I am backing the fight to take this all the way to a court as high as necessary, but when we are dealing with HMRC and the existing government the odds will never be in our favour, no matter how strong we beleive our legal case is on many grounds.

please, no more 'odds in our favour' stuff. i am assuming we're screwed, anything else will be a nice surprise

[poppy01]

In addition to HMRC (Inland Revenue, Customs & Excise), he has represented:

Secretary of State for Health
Deparment of Food and Rural Affairs
Home Secretary
Secretary of State for Justice
Department of Work and Pensions
Ministry of Agriculture Food and Fisheries

I am struggling to find a single case he has been involved in which doesn't involve the establishment, which in itself may not be that unusual.

However, in every single case he has represented the establishment.

what I dont get is why he accepted the oral presentation and granted the JR

[normalbloke]

However, in every single case he has represented the establishment.

Haha.. I'm sure its just a coincidence......

[DonkeyRhubarb]

what I dont get is why he accepted the oral presentation and granted the JR

As I recall, I think he said we had a right to "our day in court". In any case, if he had refused permission, Montpelier would have taken it to the Court of Appeal like PwC have done after their JR was turned down.

From what others have told me, it doesn't sound like Singh, on behalf of HMRC, put up much resistance during the oral hearing.

I wonder if HMRC would have known at that time that Parker would end up presiding over the JR? Hmmm...

[Emigre]

In addition to HMRC (Inland Revenue, Customs & Excise), he has represented:

Secretary of State for Health
Deparment of Food and Rural Affairs
Home Secretary
Secretary of State for Justice
Department of Work and Pensions
Ministry of Agriculture Food and Fisheries

I am struggling to find a single case he has been involved in which doesn't involve the establishment, which in itself may not be that unusual.

However, in every single case he has represented the establishment.

So, if we add HM Treasury to the list Parker will be working nicely towards a clean sweep of Govt departments.

More generally, we should avoid overt criticism of the Judge, he was after all just doing his job, and I know that some will think it was a bad job. Our appeal will highlight areas of misunderstanding and others of judgement perhaps not fully supported by the facts or precedent.

The bottom line is that it would have taken a Denning to have ruled in our favour as a Judge at first instance. The real disappointment for us was the manner in which his judgement was formed ie at a social and political policy level when such an area is beyond his remit. in essence he based his judgement in the clouds and gave short shrift to the facts.

[PlaneSailing]

As I recall, I think he said we had a right to "our day in court". In any case, if he had refused permission, Montpelier would have taken it to the Court of Appeal like PwC have done after their JR was turned down.

From what others have told me, it doesn't sound like Singh, on behalf of HMRC, put up much resistance during the oral hearing.

I wonder if HMRC would have known at that time that Parker would end up presiding over the JR? Hmmm...

Mr singh didn't really put up much of a fight, he mainly made points about
papers arriving late, which the judge thought was a little over-zealous.
I admit that I was suprised to see the same judge sitting at the JR. I guess
that must be the way things are done.

Anyway, I didn't realise the PwC thing was in the Court of Appeal.
I assume they have they gone through the written & oral submission
process to get that far?

[FUD]

Fun and games?...they must be laughing

So let's see now. They can pass legislation over a lie, allowing them to then move the goal posts. Then they get a ref who is sympathetic to their cause and who has played on their team several times. Do you get the idea we are playing against loaded dice?

[smalldog]

appeal

im encouraged they are in appeal too, didnt realise which means there is hope for our appeal being granted