BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[DonkeyRhubarb]

HMRC softens litigation strategy

Quotes:

HMRC are, without doubt, grossly incompetent and staffed by people, many of whom have a serious attitude problem. Only recently a client was told, on tape, by a so called "senior" officer - "we are the Inland Revenue, you cant sue us".

Unfortunately this belief that HMRC are a law unto themselves and are above the law is all too common within HMRC.

HMRC is intellectually dishonest.

Fortunately its operatives are unarmed (for an armed example see The Taliban) but still at large and able to harm people (unlike Broadmoor patients).

Raoul Moate would have made it big as an HMRC senior investigator.

[normalbloke]

Nice quotes...

HMRC softens litigation strategy

[/I]

"HMRC is committed to tackling avoidance. HMRC's strategy is to design out opportunities for avoidance as far as possible; to detect avoidance early; and to respond it to it quickly - by advising ministers on changing the law or by investigation and if necessary litigation

Just like our case then... and

" and HMRC will always seek to resolve issues if possible without recourse to litigation. HMRC is exploring alternative ways of resolving disputes "

like changing the law retrospectively....


Now s58 is law, the only recourse we have is the long and winding legal road to Europe, or a repeal. The latter is pie in the sky as this Coalition clearly has no 'cajones' at all. As the man said, 'timing is everything'.. and HMRC shafted us at exactly the right time.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

As the man said, 'timing is everything'.. and HMRC shafted us at exactly the right time.

A case of wrong place, wrong time.

I doubt even Labour would have stooped this low in the early years. Unfortunately we got caught in the fag end of an administration which had already grown accustomed to sweeping legalities aside (Iraq war etc).

HMRC, who have always believed they are above the law anyway, simply took advantage of this to cover up their own incompetence.

[silver_lining]

A case of wrong place, wrong time.

I doubt even Labour would have stooped this low in the early years. Unfortunately we got caught in the fag end of an administration which had already grown accustomed to sweeping legalities aside (Iraq war etc).

HMRC, who have always believed they are above the law anyway, simply took advantage of this to cover up their own incompetence.

Dont be naive and read anything positive from this, this is just politics and rhetoric at work.

For example - "try out third-party mediation" - classic.

Basically we will hand off the problem to someone else, sell the debt for example, let others recover it and become the 'bad boys'..... win win for HMRC.

They are and will continue to act holier than thou or some might put continue to be a cunch of bunts.

[BolshieBastard]

Dont be naive and read anything positive from this, this is just politics and rhetoric at work.

For example - "try out third-party mediation" - classic.

Basically we will hand off the problem to someone else, sell the debt for example, let others recover it and become the 'bad boys'..... win win for HMRC.

They are and will continue to act holier than thou or some might put continue to be a cunch of bunts.

Correct. They are the biggest bunch of unts going.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Correct. They are the biggest bunch of unts going.

And Dave Hartnett is the biggest unt of them all, and he's an ugly motherf'cker too.

[Buzby]

he is also most wined and dined ...

And Dave Hartnett is the biggest unt of them all, and he's an ugly motherf'cker too.

Whitehall's most wined and dined civil servant is HMRC's Dave Hartnett - Telegraph

lets hope if declared all of this!!

[TheBarCapBoyz]

Our old Friend Again

People will have noticed the High Court granted an injunction preventing the press revealing the identity of the naughty England player who has been shagging around.

The judge?

Our old friend Justice Parker.

In tune with public opinion as ever.

England footballer granted continuation of gagging order - Telegraph

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Our old friend Justice Parker.

Back in January I suggested Parker might not have been totally impartial due to the fact that, prior to becoming a judge last year, he had spent the previous 20-odd years of his career almost exclusively representing HMRC (Customs).

I don't think there is any evidence to suggest he was deliberately biased. However, working for HMRC for that length of time must affect your beliefs and perceptions (if not your sanity ). For example, HMRC's conduct in our case might not seem at all unusual to him, whereas most impartial observers might conclude that their behaviour was far from reasonable.

The overall concusion of his judgment, that s58 was within the wide margin of appreciation under a1p1 (supremacy of Parliament), may have been expected of a lower court but the way he arrived at this was very one-sided. No blame was attached to HMRC for their undue delay in dealing with the matter or the fact they never once mentioned Padmore/retrospection prior to 2008.

On the contrary, he actually pushed the blame on to us for not forcing the issue and taking HMRC to the commissioners, despite the fact that HMRC had effectively entrapped us by stating their commitment to take test cases to the commissioners and asking us to be bound by the decision.

I think the final outcome may have been the same with a different judge but the reasoning behind it might have been a lot more measured and balanced.

[TheBarCapBoyz]

Back in January I suggested Parker might not have been totally impartial due to the fact that, prior to becoming a judge last year, he had spent the previous 20-odd years of his career almost exclusively representing HMRC (Customs).

I don't think there is any evidence to suggest he was deliberately biased. However, working for HMRC for that length of time must affect your beliefs and perceptions (if not your sanity ). For example, HMRC's conduct in our case might not seem at all unusual to him, whereas most impartial observers might conclude that their behaviour was far from reasonable.

The overall concusion of his judgment, that s58 was within the wide margin of appreciation under a1p1 (supremacy of Parliament), may have been expected of a lower court but the way he arrived at this was very one-sided. No blame was attached to HMRC for their undue delay in dealing with the matter or the fact they never once mentioned Padmore/retrospection prior to 2008.

On the contrary, he actually pushed the blame on to us for not forcing the issue and taking HMRC to the commissioners, despite the fact that HMRC had effectively entrapped us by stating their commitment to take test cases to the commissioners and asking us to be bound by the decision.

I think the final outcome may have been the same with a different judge but the reasoning behind it might have been a lot more measured and balanced.

Indeed. Which is why such bodies as the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court exist.

One would think that with three judges of a higher standing the whole sorry mess will come under more thorough scrutiny next time out.