BN66 - JR Judgement Day

[NickFitz]

I was there, I didn't hear the Judge hint at this???

That seems to be a reference to paragraphs 87 and 88 of the judgement.

[WhatEver]

I've posted a compliant here https://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/

[PlaneSailing]

I was there, I didn't hear the Judge hint at this???

And it was in Court 10

[TheFaQQer]

My Taxation revenue will benefit some other state, which hopefully will not splurge it away on keeping a benefit system going for 20% of the adult population in order to keep their voting base.

Um - isn't the point of the case that you don't really pay much taxation revenue?

[javacoder]

I was there, I didn't hear the Judge hint at this???

That seems to be a reference to paragraphs 87 and 88 of the judgement.

Gittins has already spotted errors in the judgement and that looks like one of them. MP did everything to bring this before the commissioners. I know our silk praised the judge but looks like he was talking nonsense.

[javacoder]

Um - isn't the point of the case that you don't really pay much taxation revenue?

Well we paid our due amount under the law as it stood at the time.

Of course this country also benefited from the trickle down effect of our earnings.

[ASB]

2p worth

Well. I've read the judgement and I'll not cherry pick from it. Very risky to take anything in isolation.

It does seem to me that it was finely balanced. He did appear to say that the outcome of an individual case was far from certain. He did appear to state the the defence argument (part of it) that it was not a partnership was strong. He did say that the case law relied upon was strong and had stood for a long time. He did also say that an applicant would have a reasonable prospect of success in terms of arguing a case at the commissioners.

What the judge has said is that parliament were entitled to redefine retrospectively their view of what a partnership was under the DTA. He has said that he felt this was proportionate.

What he has NOT said is that the claims to relief under the definition are invalid.

Just my view of course from reading the judgement.

[nick4notax]

An election may solve this sooner...

Wonder if its worth writing to our MPs again... Is a guarantee to halt this process worth a guarantee of 2500 votes? I know I'd vote any mainstream party who promised me that. Are you listening Tory snoopers????

[bananarepublic]

Gittins has already spotted errors in the judgement and that looks like one of them. MP did everything to bring this before the commissioners. I know our silk praised the judge but looks like he was talking nonsense.

It appears that there is definitely a mistake in the judgement. The judge said that we could have requested CN's at any time and initiated the process that leads to the commissioners. However, CN's were issued and most people were lumped in with these cases, so surely we satisfied this suggestion.

Don't know how important this is for the proportionality argument, but surely this knocks one of the props supporting the judgement.

Also, and I believe the judge touched on this in the judgement - when Padmore was enacted, Padmore and the others who had claimed the same exemption but were lumped together for the commissioners case were exempted from the retrospection.

There seems to be a lack of consistency both in the application of BN66 and the judgement.

[KiwiGuy]

Wonder if its worth writing to our MPs again... Is a guarantee to halt this process worth a guarantee of 2500 votes? I know I'd vote any mainstream party who promised me that. Are you listening Tory snoopers????

yes i was thinking the same thing, will they want to be associated with BBC "TAX DODGERS"