BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[TheBarCapBoyz]

To be fair on the Government, since they voted against the legislation we've had a High Court judgment giving it a glowing endorsement.

This makes it very difficult for them to do anything without it being perceived as rewarding tax avoiders, which in the current climate could be political

Have to disagree with you on this one DR.

Otherwise you end up with a chicken and egg situation. Parker decided in favour of HMRC largely on the "will of parliament" line of reasoning. And the new Government can't change the legislation because of a "High Court endorsement".

In any case, that "endorsement" was based on the "will" of the last parliament. This is a new parliament with a new Government, and this issue will need to be addressed sooner or later. If they are against retrospection, then they're against it. You can't be against in in opposition and in favour in Government, and in our view, it is for this Government to decide on what the law should be, not the judiciary.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Have to disagree with you on this one DR.

Otherwise you end up with a chicken and egg situation. Parker decided in favour of HMRC largely on the "will of parliament" line of reasoning. And the new Government can't change the legislation because of a "High Court endorsement".

In any case, that "endorsement" was based on the "will" of the last parliament. This is a new parliament with a new Government, and this issue will need to be addressed sooner or later. If they are against retrospection, then they're against it. You can't be against in in opposition and in favour in Government, and in our view, it is for this Government to decide on what the law should be, not the judiciary.

Fair point.

The trouble is, if it's left to Parliament to decide what the boundaries should be, then you're at the whim of whichever lot happens to be in power at the time.

For example, if the Government reversed s.58 now, what's to stop a future Labour government reinstating it?

The other thing to bear in mind is that, whilst Parliament might pass the law, our "friends" at HMRC are clearly in the driving seat when it comes to drafting anti-avoidance legislation and these thugs know no boundaries.

It may be a total cop out by the Government but I can see the merits of letting the courts decide this once and for all.

[PlaneSailing]

I wonder if this would be more productive?

Cash for Information

It certainly worked for the Telegraph over MPs expenses.

1000 people x £100 =

£100,000

Maybe it's time to stop playing by their rules...

I have my cheque book at the ready.

[smalldog]

I wonder if this would be more productive?

Cash for Information

It certainly worked for the Telegraph over MPs expenses.

1000 people x £100 =

£100,000

Maybe it's time to stop playing by their rules...

Im in, if we had a consortium willing to pay for the information then how could they refuse on the basis of too expensive

[not-a-penny]

I wonder if this would be more productive?

Cash for Information

It certainly worked for the Telegraph over MPs expenses.

1000 people x £100 =

£100,000

Maybe it's time to stop playing by their rules...

Now this sounds like a plan. I'm in.

[loser]

I like it...

Count me in....times 2 if necessary

I wonder if this would be more productive?

Cash for Information

It certainly worked for the Telegraph over MPs expenses.

1000 people x £100 =

£100,000

Maybe it's time to stop playing by their rules...

[TAF4]

Now this sounds like a plan. I'm in.

Me too.
That is the kind of 'creative' thinking I like.

Note for Hector - 100 large will go a long way toward offsetting the 2 years of frozen pay and whatever arrangement yet to be made that will put a tarnish on your gold plated pension plan

[deckster]

Wow. Just, wow. Is it just me, or have we just crossed the line in a huge way?

I'm all for fighting this through the courts, and lobbying MPs, and using every tool the system gives us - but offering to bribe government officials is a step too far.

[TAF4]

Wow. Just, wow. Is it just me, or have we just crossed the line in a huge way?

Just you probably Deckster.
Remember Hector 'bought' stolen bank account details of offshore account holders (Lichtenstein I believe) and then pursued the account holders to justify where their funds came from.

Goose - Gander!

I believe it is in the public interest to reveal just how the powers of HMRC have led to corrupt practices within that secret organisation. Misleading Parliament crosses the line and they have become a danger to democracy.

[Toocan]

Wow. Just, wow. Is it just me, or have we just crossed the line in a huge way?

I'm all for fighting this through the courts, and lobbying MPs, and using every tool the system gives us - but offering to bribe government officials is a step too far.

I don't think there is any suggestion of a bribe here - what is the expression, "formed a view"?

This is something HMRC employees are used to dealing with though usually the shoe is on the other foot. See this link: Money talks in the pursuit of tax evaders - Telegraph