BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[KiwiGuy]

Like you, I'm fairly new to this forum and got obsessed with it just before our recent court case. There are others here who know a lot more about Alan Jones and indeed have met the man while he was selling the product. My impressions of him are just through these postings and links to the scripts of his court cases V MP.
......

Mr Jones, to me you are a side show, a tragic character but also light relief in this otherwise serious business of S58 and retrospective taxation. As some of us feel that we are about to be raped by bullies do you recognise the gimp?

AWESOME!!!

[TAF4]

The Gimp

As some of us feel that we are about to be raped by bullies do you recognise the gimp?

What a brilliant tag line that would make.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Hi,

Just wondering was anyone actually going to attend PWC oral next Tuesday?

Regards,D.

Even if none of us attend, I should be able to get feedback from our solicitor and I'm in contact with the claimant himself.

[normalbloke]

Nice to see you back DR... I'm sure our friends in the North will agree...

[Slobbo]

Something interesting the Lib Dems sent to my wife. Pretty old but I'd not seen it before.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/20...008-05-22a.9.0

[Cugel]

Thanks Slobbo

The continuation of your link:

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/20...use+55%27#g2.3

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Something interesting the Lib Dems sent to my wife. Pretty old but I'd not seen it before.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/20...008-05-22a.9.0

This shows (if further evidence was needed) what a farce this is. I read this a few months back and it's pretty clear that Parliament aint happy. JK made some sweeping and IMHO incorrect assertions. But after all of that, we're now having decisions based on Social Policy and "fair share". You couldn't make this stuff up (unless you're Labour)!

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Thanks Slobbo

The continuation of your link:

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/20...use+55%27#g2.3

And I like this quote from JK:

"There are no cases of litigation at the moment."

Sorry Jane, but that aint true. There were and still are 4 test cases.

[KiwiGuy]

Something interesting the Lib Dems sent to my wife. Pretty old but I'd not seen it before.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/20...008-05-22a.9.0

thanks for that, its a good read, i love the fact that everyone kept on saying, if its so bad, why didnt you take them to court straight away

[smalldog]

this is my fav:

David Gauke (Shadow Minister, Treasury; South West Hertfordshire, Conservative)
A Government should pursue and litigate on the basis of the existing law. When they identify an abuse, they should issue a warning and announce that they will change the law at the first opportunity, and then do so. That takes me to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. The Minister said that HMRC was first aware of the schemes in 2001, but they were not pursued widely because the warnings given by HMRC proved to be sufficient. None the less, there was an awareness at that time by HMRC of some ambiguity in the wording of the 1987 legislation.

Notwithstanding the fact that the schemes were not being pursued, why were such measures not introduced under the Finance Act 2001 or subsequent Acts? There has been plenty of them. Given that there were two Finance Acts in 2005, there have probably been about eight. The matter causes great concern, and the Government’s approach should be to pursue it rigorously and to litigate if there is some doubt about the law. In the meantime, warnings should be given and legislation should be made. The Government have not done that. They have sat on the matter, have come back subsequently some years later and taken action when the scheme started to develop, having been aware of the ambiguity under the 1987 legislation.

In response to the hon. Member for South Derbyshire, I must say that, if the Government fail to make the measure retrospective, it is an admission that the previous legislation was defective. Indeed, I am more inclined to interpret the proposal to make it retrospective as an admission that the 1987 Act does not do what the Government said it does. That is not based on a legal analysis but, if they were so confident that the 1987 legislation prohibits the behaviour that we are talking about, why on earth have they not litigated on the matter?

For those reasons I am more convinced than ever that the retrospective nature of the clause is unacceptable. Should the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall wish to press his amendment to a vote, we will support him.