BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[screwthis]

You are forgetting something.

HMRC used a time machine to go back to 1987 and make the law clear.

The unclear law you refer to never existed.

Is that clear?

So Marty McQC went back to the Enchantment Under the Sea Dance in 1987 in an effort to stop the tax from slowly fading off his self assessment. After he punched Biff Gittins in the face he called up his cousin Hector and said "you know that clarification you've been looking for....well listen to this.."

[jeanvaljean]

European Law Retrospective

I've just Googled using European Law Retrospective as the search criterion. Wikipedia came up as the one of the first listings.

The first sentence reads:

"The principle of legality is the legal ideal that requires all law to be clear, ascertainable and non-retrospective."

Seems clear enough to me.

[centurian]

So Marty McQC went back to the Enchantment Under the Sea Dance in 1987 in an effort to stop the tax from slowly fading off his self assessment. After he punched Biff Gittins in the face he called up his cousin Hector and said "you know that clarification you've been looking for....well listen to this.."

Not only that - but the thing in 1987 wasn't exactly right either, so McQA used the DeLorean again to go back even further.

[BolshieBastard]

I've just Googled using European Law Retrospective as the search criterion. Wikipedia came up as the one of the first listings.

The first sentence reads:

"The principle of legality is the legal ideal that requires all law to be clear, ascertainable and non-retrospective."

Seems clear enough to me.

Except for the fact that the House of Commons has ultimate supremity on any finance bill included in a budget as BN66 was.

[portseven]

Except for the fact that the House of Commons has ultimate supremity on any finance bill included in a budget as BN66 was.

Does that only apply to the fianance bill?

[BolshieBastard]

Does that only apply to the fianance bill?

Unless a power has been signed away to the EU, the HoC generally has supemacy as it is the elected chamber. The HoL can only reject a Government bill so many times although the Government has a timetable for its legislation and may drop a bill if it takes too long to get onto the statute book.

The concept of Parliament specifically, the HoC regards finance was set in the early 1900's when the HoL attempted to overturn the Government of the day's attempt to pass into law certain bills. The Government included the legislation in the budget finance bill whence the Lords attempted to overturn it again.

This led to a mini constitutional crisis and the Prime Minister demanding more hereditary peers be created to force the bill through both Houses.

In the end, the Lords backed down and the HoC \ Government had its way thus establishing its supremacy on the matter. Ever since, the Lords does not reject a Government finance bill.

Further reading on the matter can be found in 'The British Constitution & Politics' which was available via McMillan Press I believe.

[PlaneSailing]

Permission to Appeal

Would MP find out if permission to appeal has been granted before the monthly press release?

The suspense is building.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Would MP find out if permission to appeal has been granted before the monthly press release?

The suspense is building.

I would imagine they would, and they would then issue a circular to everyone.

I haven't heard anything from MP, or my contact in the PwC camp, so I assume a decision is still pending.

I will be stunned if permission is refused.

By the way, I think I mentioned before that proceedings of the SC are televised. Julian Assange's extradition appeal is being heard today:
Supreme Court (UK): Live TV Coverage Of Cases, Provided By Sky News

[BolshieBastard]

Chief Exe let off 40k tax bill! Nice, that company are giving my son the effing runaround over his loans saying they havent got this, they havent got that when its all been sent. Twice!

Nice work hartnett, cameron, gauke and clegg you bunch of

Chief executive of Student Loans Company allowed to avoid £40,000 a year in tax by Coalition - Telegraph

Ed Lester, chief executive of the Student Loans Company, was paid through a private firm he had established rather than being paid direct – a tax avoidance mechanism which could reduce his income tax liability by £40,000 a year.

The disclosure threatens to undermine Coalition pledges to crack down on tax avoidance in the private sector and opens ministers up to accusations of double standards.

The details were uncovered after an investigation by the Exaro News website and the BBC’s Newsnight programme, which will be broadcast on Wednesday night.

Documents show the deal was signed off by David Willetts, the Universities minister, who said in a letter that it had been “agreed by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury” Danny Alexander.

Mr Alexander insisted he did not know that the arrangement allowed him to avoid tax, and has ordered an urgent investigation across Whitehall to see if the practice is widespread.

[SantaClaus]

Maybe we should just use this argument at the Supreme Court:

"Mr Alexander insisted he did not know that the arrangement allowed him to avoid tax, and has ordered an urgent investigation across Whitehall to see if the practice is widespread."


Words cannot express the hatred I feel for the elected and un-elected hypocrites that run this country