BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[normalbloke]

Let's stick to legalities.

Just read all the moralising and 'fair share' cr*p posted over the weekend by the trolls. There are numerous threads that discuss the moral arguments involved with taxation with lots of differing views. That's why you need laws to determine amounts.

'Fair share'....hmm... Ask 1000 people and you'd get 1000 different answers. Yet this is an argument being used in a court of law.

People will take advantage of loopholes in any law - and do. And any differing 'interpretations' should be sorted in a court of law as soon as someone has an issue with it.

No-one has proved I broke any law in 2001/2. Supercilious moralisers may not agree with what I did, even though it was within the law, but I don't really give a t*ss, as the only opinion that matters -ie a judge's, was never allowed to be aired. I was never taken to court. HMRC tried several times to come up with a legitimate argument to challenge, but none worked, and then 'Padmore' comes out of the hat without ever being mentioned in the preceding 7 years. The law was then changed and backdated, so I now am guilty. 'Legitimate expection?' Hah.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

I don't remember seeing this at the time so is a first read for me.

BBC News - Will retrospective taxes affect us all?

She raises the same concerns DR and TSBT have, namely "Is it the thin end of a very dangerous wedge, allowing HMRC to get its own way without bothering to argue its case in the courts? "

For the HMRC time machine computer:

WHILE TRUE
DO
fair_share=/dev/null
IF [ tax_paid < fair_share ]
THEN
FAIR_AND_PROPORTIONATE="no"
sleep 6 (years)
FI
IF [ $FAIR_AND_PROPORTIONATE="no" ]
THEN
exec HUITSON_SC_FUNCTION
FAIR_AND_PROPORTIONATE="yes"
ELSE
exit 0
FI
DONE

The bit of the code that will be flawed as a result of s.58 is the first line "WHILE TRUE" as it could only come as a result BN66 stylie legislation.
Hey, but what do I know? It seems this notion is scaremongering. So happy to be in the wrong on this, but I have a strange feeling..

[DonkeyRhubarb]

You missed a bit.

The criteria for firing up the time machine also depends on:
a) how many people it will screw over and
b) how much money they can grab

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

He who is without sin...

On another note, giving a wider consideration to the issue at hand and some of the recent posts, I wondered if anyone here, anyone lurking or the wider community beyond had gotten a quote for say, window cleaning, garden work, car repairs and the like. You get the drift. Basically small time jobs where you might ask (illegally of course), "how much for cash mate?"

What that means on a simple level is how much cheaper do I get it if you knock off VAT? Interestingly this is deemed tax evasion as per the quote from Direct Gov below.

"The government can prosecute people who commit tax fraud, as well as anyone who helps them to commit the fraud."

So whilst some might be less than bothered about paying 50 quid instead of 60 for an odd job man task, there you have it. And that's not even avoidance, it's evasion and nobody gets to know what was done except the one asking and the one receiving.

In Australia they reckon 21 billion dollars of tax is lost through this hiddent black "economy". Beats 100M transparently declared hands down.

Anyway, the point is this. There is no secret that if you havn't then you probably know someone who has asked "how much for cash mate?". Which means there is allegedly a massive number of people out there who have not avoided or evaded tax themselves but indirectly and without maybe thinking beyond the transaction, gotten themselves a discounted deal. What the good folks who agreed to accept this do in terms of tax is not your concern. But why ask for a cash price unless to get a discount? And of course an invoice is most certainly not needed.

It's as common and obvious as it gets. Another very BIG elephant in the room. But hey, if most of the voting population do it, you would not want to be the MP who suggests clobbering them would you?

Without going back once again into the facts and that this has occured before, remember Mapeley STEPS? Yep, a reduced cost with and I say with a general rather than legal position - hence alleged status - "how much for cash mate?" can and is/was used everywhere - A better deal for you.

Given Direct Gov comments, that means most of the population has engaged in tax evasion! And looking at Oz, that's 20 BILLION lost tax. Don't see retrospection anytime soon in these cases.

But of course, some would say, "yeah I paid the car repair bloke cash, it was only a reduction from 60 to 50 quid". So a percentage excuse. It was tax evasion. But nobody gets up in arms about it. Only a tenner for sure. But multiply that tenner by everyone doing the same and you have a "significant risk". Retrospection? Hmm, nope.

So forgive me for playing the "Sainthood" card". I'm not. But when folks cast a stone on tax avoiders, I suggest reading the Bible first. Yes, there will be some Saints, but a 5 minute Google of cash in hand or "tax avoidance cash in hand value" shows that this is way more significant.

Not an excuse or intent as I mentioned to our outside friends. Just an observation.

And claiming that a tenner reduction for cash is nothing is like saying Huitson's relief was nothing. Aggregate it all, here and everywhere else this goes on and you get something MASSIVE. But if you do the cash in hand thing, you know that everyone else can/is doing it. So no excuse that you're an individual. You are contributing.

Not a moral argument, just a simple fact that Google confirms. Makes 100M transparent and legal tax relief claims over 6 years look like pennies.

So the next time anyone gets offered a cash quote and who pay the "full whack" in tax, of course "no thankyou, invoice please" is the proportionate and fair answer.

"One Step Beyond" - Note, this in 2010!
http://www.epolitix.com/latestnews/a...property-mess/

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

You missed a bit.

The criteria for firing up the time machine also depends on:
a) how many people it will screw over and
b) how much money they can grab

Sorry DR,

IF [ people_screwed < vote_gains ]
THEN
IF [ money_taken > money_wasted ]
THEN
exec HUITSON_SC_FUNCTION
FI
ELSE
UNTIL [ money_taken > money_wasted ]
DO
sleep $years
DONE
FI

OK, bad code, but kids bothering me so can't write it any better!

[AtW]

I wondered if anyone here, anyone lurking or the wider community

Is this a new invitation for the outsiders from the wider community to join this thread and make their positive contribution to it?

I'll let you off this time, but if you need me then say AtW AtW AtW ...

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Is this a new invitation for the outsiders from the wider community to join this thread and make their positive contribution to it?

I'll let you off this time, but if you need me then say AtW AtW AtW ...

Sad, very sad. Is this some trauma knot from when you were young and possibly not being invited to parties?

So no, thankyou. If I did want to discuss this with you I'd PM you. But I don't. And if I can't refer to people beyond those who contribute on this THREAD without you trying to sneak into a "party" to which you were not invited then it doesn't say much about you.

You're in the wrong yard.

"Let off"?. Hmmm, trauma knot and delusional too.

[silver_lining]

Is this a new invitation for the outsiders from the wider community to join this thread and make their positive contribution to it?

I'll let you off this time, but if you need me then say AtW AtW AtW ...

dear oh dear.

too much time, too few cells

[screwthis]

Quieter after the trolls have gone

Am now using 3.5% of my time checking this forum as opposed to 40%.

[phileds]

Here's what the current issue of Private Eye (issue 1295, pages 30-31) has to say on a recent HMRC brush with the judiciary:

While waving through the big tax avoiders, HM Revenue & Customs is taking its usual aggressive line with far lesser issues, such as the late filing of tax returns. It has recently received a severe drubbing from Geraint Jones QC, however, in an appeal against such hardline action. Its unjustified "high-handed, threatening" behaviour, the first-tier tribunal judge said, "smacks more of the conduct of a disreputable debt collector than of responsible conduct by an organ of the state.

The article goes on to describe HMRC's actions against a small charity for failing to file a P35, and then:

Jones was also highly critical of the HMRC tactic of deliberately waiting until the penalties for late filing had rolled up before notifying the taxpayer that its return had not been received and as a result a much bigger penalty incurred.

"HMRC is a manifestation of the State," declared Jones. "It is no function of the State to use the penalty system as a cash-generating scheme [...] it is inexplicable why HMRC deliberately delays sending out a penalty notice for four months, with the result that a penalty for five months becomes payable."

"It has long been part of the common law of this country that manifestations of the State must act fairly and in good conscience with its citizens. In our judgement there is nothing fair or reasonable in setting a computer system so that it does not generate a penalty notice until four months have gone by from the date of default..."

Now I know this isn't the same sort of case we are up against - but I was most interested in the bit about "...[it is] part of the common law of this country that manifestations of the State must act fairly and in good conscience with its citizens".

HMRC waited years to issue closure notices to MP scheme members, together with final bills of tax owed, allowing many of us to accrue, in some cases, 6 figures of interest payments in a scheme which, from the off, was declared fully to HMRC, and never attacked until the law was conveniently amended.

How can HMRC be said to have acted "fairly and in good conscience" in our case?