BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[Toocan]

I've just received this link in an email:

Taxman

Is it the case that EBT schemes are about as 'aggressive' as the MP scheme?

If that's the case how come the legislation put in place to block them was not applied retrospectively? Surely there is an argument to say we are being dealt with unfairly. There's that word again.

If someone turned up at your door and demanded cash with the threat that if you didn't pay they'd do something nasty to you, what would your reaction be?

It is quite remarkable that HMRC give no valid reasoning for their demand. Not even something that is remotely connected with reality.

And yet they are happy to strike a deal with the likes of Vodafone.

It's like they've became the the home of paranoia, nightmares and loathing...

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

If someone turned up at your door and demanded cash with the threat that if you didn't pay they'd do something nasty to you, what would your reaction be?

It is quite remarkable that HMRC give no valid reasoning for their demand. Not even something that is remotely connected with reality.

And yet they are happy to strike a deal with the likes of Vodafone.

It's like they've became the the home of paranoia, nightmares and loathing...

To our observant friends on the 3rd floor of HMRC at 100 Parliament Street and a certain FoI request "Remember, remember the 5th of November (2007)..." Probably best to avoid the rest of the lyrics though! Get your fax (time) machine fixed. You cannot have a fax on the 5th November 2007 with an electronic time stamp of February 12th 1996 timed 03:45am! It might be a problem with your fax machine or that of the HMRC Solicitors Office - Legal & Governance but in any event it implies you don't know the importance of time. Hmmm.

BTW, if you're scratching your heads on this, I'm merely pointing out a clarification of a technical matter. So whilst I'm on it, there were 15 pages sent not 14 excluding the fax header sheet. And all of this is in the public domain before you get all edgy about it. Feel free to PM me if you want the relevant public links. Mind you, you'd have to stand on your head to recognise the "defect", so a possible reason for it existing but something identified by an "inverse" position to make it have meaning...

Yeah I know, being pedantic on detail can be annoying, but close analysis of the facts can pick out all manner of errors or mistakes or needed corrections. Hence why it would seem churlish not to point out this. After all, we're talking about something not to be taken lightly or on a whim or God forbid - assumed. So hope this helps our friends to correct or be aware of any oversight if that is the appropriate word to use.

Looking closley at evidence even down to this which is easy to otherwise miss often helps explain that which otherwise cannot have explanation. A forensic approach is commonly the only way to join the dots.

Any chance of an Indian Summer folks? It's been rather chilly but I hope things might get warmer.

Got to run, the other half has just spilled the beans and there's a real mess to be cleaned up and get things restored to how they should have been. I think it's called detante.

[zippo]

One rule for them and one rule for every one else.........

Why should MPs be exempt from new law to block tax avoidance? – Telegraph Blogs

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Progress of Supreme Court appeals

There are 2 stages to the application:
(1) seek leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal (which is normally refused)
(2) apply within 28 days directly to the Supreme Court

PwC have completed both stages (stage 1 was refused). Their application to the Supreme Court has been submitted.

Montpelier are still at stage 1. There was a slight delay which meant it slipped into the Summer recess. The application is with LJ Mummery but the court say we may not get a decision until the start of the new term in October.

Assuming stage 1 is refused, Montpelier would then have 28 days to apply to the Supreme Court.

[BrilloPad]

Admin - sorry about my last post - its nice to be back. Hopefully I have not missed us beating HMRC?

[administrator]

No worries Brillo - wicked to have you back Were the rumours about you attending the hearing in your batman outfit true?

[BrilloPad]

No worries Brillo - wicked to have you back Were the rumours about you attending the hearing in your batman outfit true?

Nope - it was wonder woman

[DonkeyRhubarb]

its nice to be back

It's bloody good to have you back mate.

We could certainly do with a bit more of the fighting spirit around here.

[BrilloPad]

It's bloody good to have you back mate.

We could certainly do with a bit more of the fighting spirit around here.

And I can help organize the celebration party when we win? I think my timescale prediction of 2012 is looking a bit optimistic - the wheels of justice turn slowly.

[Toocan]

Why should MPs be exempt from new law to block tax avoidance? – Telegraph Blogs

Tony Blair is well known for using business or tax structures - I think The Guardian attempted to trace through all of his companies. I guess this rule would make it much easier for someone in his position to manage his taxes.

HMRC must accept that MPs may do this, as they draft the finance acts along with the treasury. So in a perverse sort of way, HMRC have actually set up an open tax avoidance scheme for MPs.