BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[Emigre]

Heres a great example of what our government is spending all that precious cash on, people who have no sense of responsibility and who think its everyone elses job to pay for their choices, just check out the comments, people are starting to get really hacked off with the benefits culture. This was an article intended to get people to empathise with poverty but its backfired massively:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...y-per-child.do

Unfortunately, I suspect that Nl has created a nation where there are more people receiving these benefits and thus keen to continue with them than those paying taxes to make those benefits available. A kind of third world social engineering = NuLiebor re-elected.

[Alan Jones]

His Honour Deemster Newey

"I treat Mr Jones' and Mr Morris' evidence with somewhat more caution. It appears to me that Mr Jones and Mr Morris both embellished their accounts to an extent."

Is that what's known as a euphemism?


Surely not? Nor would HMRC embellish their account of Padmore...

AJ 0 - 2 DR

IOM Appeals Court (Jones v Montpelier - 2 Ds 2008/30 J.892) First Deemster Kerruish and Demster Tattersall - quote

"33. Put succinctly, the Appellant`s [i.e. Mr Jones] second submission was that Acting Deemster Sullivan had been misled as to what had happened since May 2007 and that on the true facts the Respondent [i.e. Montpelier] had been guilty of undue delay. We observe that if this court was satisfied that Acting Deemster Sullivan exercised her discretion under a misapprehension of the facts, this court would be required to substitute its decision for that of Acting Deemster Sullivan.

34. Having carefully considered the submissions made to this court by Mr Ramsden [i.e. Barrister for Montpelier & Junior Counsel re Huitson] and the Appellant [i.e. Jones] we accept the Appellant`s [i.e. Jones] second submission. "

SO just in case you cannot read the Appeal Judges accept Mr Jones position that Montpelier "misled" the Deemster in the High court and did NOT accept the "story" put forward by Montpelier.

3-2

[TheBarCapBoyz]

Just to put the level of Government debt in to perspective: the UK treasury is now having to borrow £500m a day to pay for the budget deficit.

In other words, the £200m we all allegedly owe the taxman will provide about 10 hours worth of funding.

[KiwiGuy]

hmmmmm

oh to be a lotto £56,000,000 winner - i see that couple which won it the other week have given their £400k house away to their cleaner.

Hey look HMRC, you can go and get the cleaner for Gift tax... or would that be "Just doing our job" too far

[smalldog]

oh to be a lotto £56,000,000 winner - i see that couple which won it the other week have given their £400k house away to their cleaner.

Hey look HMRC, you can go and get the cleaner for Gift tax... or would that be "Just doing our job" too far

I sniff retrospective tax measures on lottery winners, and of course they should have foreseen it and stashed a load of it away for future taxes

[Emigre]

oh to be a lotto £56,000,000 winner - i see that couple which won it the other week have given their £400k house away to their cleaner.

Hey look HMRC, you can go and get the cleaner for Gift tax... or would that be "Just doing our job" too far

Isn't the house part of the cleaner's income, call it a bonus, and subject to PAYE? Aren't the lottery winners at fault for not making the appropriate deductions? Does the house fall into the new bonus tax provisions so that the employer has to pay 50%, as well as employers NI, the employee NI and the 50% top rate by the cleaner who would have his personal allowance taken away? And the penalties for getting this all wrong? Allowing for a bit of HMRC administrative error, about £56m. It would be easier for the cleaner to beome a non-dom.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

SO just in case you cannot read the Appeal Judges accept Mr Jones position that Montpelier "misled" the Deemster in the High court and did NOT accept the "story" put forward by Montpelier.

The above "story" only concerns a separate dispute over legal costs which arose after May 2007.
http://www.judgments.im/content/J892.htm

The real story is what happened in 2001.
http://www.judgments.im/content/J984.htm

Conclusion

161. In summary, in my judgment Mr Jones and Mr Morris made wrongful use of (a) the idea of using offshore interest-in-possession trusts in partnership to avoid the IR35 legislation, (b) information about the manner in which the Disputed Scheme was constructed and (c) Mr Argles' March opinions.

Overall conclusion

162. Montpelier has satisfied me that Mr Jones and Mr Morris are liable to it for wrongful use of confidential information.

[Doug1965]

They are after the doctors now

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...appeal-11.html

[smalldog]

oh dear

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...xman-cometh.do

[Douglas]

PMQs today

PM Questions today (Wednesday)
1228 "Ms Harman says a parliamentary bill is not retrospective".

Really ?