BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[phileds]

Un-****ing-believable

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...me-expenses.do

How on earth can one's "main home" be one which you visit once a month? WTF??

The DPP's pisspoor QC noted : "'Only or main residence' is not defined in the House of Lords' expenses scheme itself; nor is it defined in legislation." - and so, by some twisted logic only a highly-trained QC could come up with, she cannot be prosecuted because, evidently, a home you visit once per month can, on some planet occupied by bewigged arseholes, be defined as one's main home.

You'd think - just possibly - that common sense would define one's main residence as the one where you spent the most time.

But no. Because there's no "definition" of main residence, anything goes.

I bring this up because in the judgement on our case, it was deemed amongst other things that users of the scheme were not paying their "fair share" of tax, and that the thrust of the law was "evidently" to stop such schemes being set up and abusing loopholes.

So, in one case it's the very letter of the law (or apparent lack of it) which stands - and in another, it boils down to opinion and intent.

I just don't get it. What have I missed?

[Cantthinkof1]

Absolutely agree with you!!

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...me-expenses.do

How on earth can one's "main home" be one which you visit once a month? WTF??

The DPP's pisspoor QC noted : "'Only or main residence' is not defined in the House of Lords' expenses scheme itself; nor is it defined in legislation." - and so, by some twisted logic only a highly-trained QC could come up with, she cannot be prosecuted because, evidently, a home you visit once per month can, on some planet occupied by bewigged arseholes, be defined as one's main home.

You'd think - just possibly - that common sense would define one's main residence as the one where you spent the most time.

But no. Because there's no "definition" of main residence, anything goes.

I bring this up because in the judgement on our case, it was deemed amongst other things that users of the scheme were not paying their "fair share" of tax, and that the thrust of the law was "evidently" to stop such schemes being set up and abusing loopholes.

So, in one case it's the very letter of the law (or apparent lack of it) which stands - and in another, it boils down to opinion and intent.

I just don't get it. What have I missed?

Just got to agree with you 100%!! - I read all about this in the Sunday Times, and found my blood boiling by the time I had read the full article.
What a complete and utter joke this country has become!
Just reinforces the fact that there is 1 law for them and another law for us!!!
A complete and utter farce !!!

After thought! - Could the above farce be used to support our case??!!

[SantaClaus]

This is why I think someone had a quiet word in Judge Parker's ear to get the verdict he arrived at.

The term "fair share" is so wooly, it has no basis in law. What is "fair share"? Baronness Uddin claimed her "fair share" of taxpayer's money and got away with it.

Hopefully, Parker's insane decision will be reversed higher up the legal ladder.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Tonight I'm worried. Not by the spectre of Climate Change Green Taxes meaning that I should commute to work on a solar powered motorbicycle; nor the fact that my wife has taken to watching blokes in pink tu-tu's showing their all on "Cerebles Dancing on Ice"; nor the fact that my 2 year old daughter can shout the Hungarian word for 'trees' or FAK! The latter, I am assured by my wife is due to my daughters closeness with another child who has a Hungarian mother.

Even BN66 causes me little concern since I rather think that its infliction is not dissimilar to 'going to bed' with a drunk tattooist hooker from Goah and then wondering a few years later if you might end up with Hep C - (retrospectively of course).

No, this is far worse. Worse than any bottom radiating, sex swinging, tourettes based retro-tax-inspection, it appears that the Polls that indicate who will be our next Government are based on Basil Brush.

I'm not kidding. After a careful analysis of the Polls (and since we're supposed to be Europeans, I include the French as well), it appears that there is a significant mijority who think that the Tories should not be in power becuase they are happy to see Basil Brush's future put to an open vote.

This has given me reason to think. We're up to our neck to the tune of some "many billions of quid" (I'm choosing to be slack since my calculator seems to struggle with numbers more than 10 digits, but suffice it to say, it's rather large). The NHS is still being "fixed" some 13 years after it was taken into "care". Education, education, eductation is now a mantra replaced with "'Elf an Safty, Elf an Safty, Elf an Safty". We have 2 wars (that we know about), a Chancellor who's eyebrows are darker than his hair and a PM who appears to roll a golf ball round his mouth before he answers any relevant question.

So what can be done? I'm concerned that there is very little. If the Polls are correct, then keeping Foxy-woxy alive is more important than any other item on the agenda.

So for those international investors who are thinking about pulling out their trillions from the UK, I say don't be alarmed. Turn around, pull down your cacks and 'Bum Bum!'.

[poppy01]

Our solicitor is hoping to get a decision on the written application within the next 6 weeks.

If the written application is accepted
then there's a chance we could get a full hearing before the end of the year

If the written application is refused
(which is quite normal) then we would have to present at an oral hearing which would delay proceedings by another few months. In this case, I can't see us getting into court for a full hearing until Spring 2011.

Beyond the Court of Appeal
Whoever wins in the Court of Appeal, it will be appealed to the Supreme Court and/or ECtHR/ECJ. This could take another 3 years or more.

Personally, I don't see there being a resolution until at least 2014.

thats great news DR, theres a very good chance I'll be dead by then

[PlaneSailing]

thats great news DR, theres a very good chance I'll be dead by then

That won't stop them chasing you!

[SantaClaus]

thats great news DR, theres a very good chance I'll be dead by then

Just make sure you dont have any gold fillings or HMRC will dig you up.
Am I implying that HMRC = Nazis? Definitely.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

thats great news DR, theres a very good chance I'll be dead by then

Even if we are blocked at every turn, which I can't see happening, it will still go on for years.

It's taken 18 months from when we applied for the JR just to get to where we are now. We've got 3 more courts to go (CoA -> SC -> EU), and the higher up you go the slower the wheels of justice turn.

And this doesn't even take into account Montpelier's "Plan B" if the HR angle does not prevail.

A resolution by 2014 is probably wildly optimisitic.

[smalldog]

old father time

In the nicest possible way I cant wait for the day I dont look at these pages anymore! The prospect of another four years of looking up the legal pages daily doesnt bear thinking about....

[helen7]

Even if we are blocked at every turn, which I can't see happening, it will still go on for years.

It's taken 18 months from when we applied for the JR just to get to where we are now. We've got 3 more courts to go (CoA -> SC -> EU), and the higher up you go the slower the wheels of justice turn.

Yes but for how long are our closure notices in the state of 'in appeal'.?

i.e. when can HMRC legally demand payment?

Can we legally appeal until all avenue's are exhausted? I certainly can't afford an extra 10% penanlty every 30 days for 4 years.