BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[DonkeyRhubarb]

So, you mean to tell me that the HMRC barrister used a quote from this forum to legitimize HMRC's actions?

Yep. HMRC cherry picked a selection of posts, including one of mine, where people appeared to acknowledge that they thought the scheme had seemed risky.

HMRC's argument was that, if we thought it was risky, then we've only got ourselves to blame by spending the money and not putting it on one side.

However, you could apply the same absurd argument to anyone who has traded through a Ltd Co since IR35 came in. The risk of being caught by ir35 has been acknowldeged on this, and countless other internet sites, but how many people "put the money on one side" just in case?

[smalldog]

Yep. HMRC cherry picked a selection of posts, including one of mine, where people appeared to acknowledge that they thought the scheme had seemed risky.

HMRC's argument was that, if we thought it was risky, then we've only got ourselves to blame by spending the money and not putting it on one side.

However, you could apply the same absurd argument to anyone who has traded through a Ltd Co since IR35 came in. The risk of being caught by ir35 has been acknowldeged on this, and countless other internet sites, but how many people "put the money on one side" just in case?

so in theory they should also give credence to our comments saying HMRC are out of order...works both ways doesnt it!

[Slobbo]

How were we supposed to know. First I heard of it being a problem was when I received the letter from MP. All of my returns had been accepted. I got a closure notice eventually.

[bombaycat]

Anyone could write anything

I can't see how anything on an internet forum can be used in any way in a court of law, who knows who anyone is writing on here and what their motives are? I can say any number of lies on here about what I knew, thought etc how can it then be used in any way when they wouldn't even know who I am or what my circumstances or motives might be?
For the next judge to read out, I have pictures of the last judge in ladies underwear wielding a courgette at a senior HMRC officer dressed in a nappy!! There, I've written it, so it must be true.

Idiots...only goes to prove that they have no understanding of the social changes that the internet has brought about, all sorts of people masquerade as all kinds of things that they aren't, check out internet grooming for heavens sake, those 40 year old blokes actually aren't 12 year old kids - wake up you stupid fools.

[Squicker]

I have pictures of the last judge in ladies underwear wielding a courgette at a senior HMRC officer dressed in a nappy!!

I guess you picked that up on the 15:23 Euston to Carlisle service - Please may I have my DVD back?

[OnYourBikeGB]

Yep. HMRC cherry picked a selection of posts, including one of mine, where people appeared to acknowledge that they thought the scheme had seemed risky.

HMRC's argument was that, if we thought it was risky, then we've only got ourselves to blame by spending the money and not putting it on one side.

However, you could apply the same absurd argument to anyone who has traded through a Ltd Co since IR35 came in. The risk of being caught by ir35 has been acknowldeged on this, and countless other internet sites, but how many people "put the money on one side" just in case?

And even if people seemed to think it was risky initially, then surely HMRCs total inability to actually come up with any reason why it was not legal could only have resulted in the assumption that perhaps it wasn't risky at all, and that it was entirely legal and above board as we always believed. It could just as easily be argued that HMRCs lack of any sort of real legal argument (apart from memorably misinterpreting a case), and failure to take any action was mitigation of any perceived risk. So why should we have kept money aside when HMRC in 7 years were unable to tell us why they were entitled to ask for it? I think there's a risk I could get hit by a bus tomorrow, but I'm still going to buy tickets for a concert in November, call me reckless if you like.

[SantaClaus]

You gotta wonder what sort of country we live in with corrupt judges, a high court worthy of a banana republic and an Inland Revenue who's actions wouldn't look out of place in a small town in Sicily.

Declaration: I Santa Claus (and my 2 reindeer) hereby give HMRC full permission to read this post out in court. , oh and HMRC, please read out that you are Twucking Funts.

[TheBarCapBoyz]

Idiots...only goes to prove that they have no understanding of the social changes that the internet has brought about, all sorts of people masquerade as all kinds of things that they aren't, check out internet grooming for heavens sake, those 40 year old blokes actually aren't 12 year old kids - wake up you stupid fools.

Indeed, the vast majority of twitterings between teenagers are really middle aged paedophiles pretending to be teenage boys conversing with middle aged coppers pretending to be teenage girls.

Mind how you go.

Maybe Judge Parker is a middle aged judge masquerading as a twat.

[smalldog]

Maybe Judge Parker is a middle aged judge masquerading as a twat.

brilliant!!!

[TAF4]

Maybe Judge Parker is a middle aged judge masquerading as a twat.

Indeed.
This the same middle-aged Judge that grants press injunctions to (allegedly) serial shag-bandits masquerading as fine role models for high profile brands.


You couldn't make it up. Oh - hang on.....