Careful!
Sorry to be pedantic, but don't underestimate HMRC's capacity to switch between precise and fuzzy language - whichever best suits their purpose at any given moment.
Their absurd argument, with s58, is that the precise wording from 1987 is itself an obstacle to understanding.
Better nail it down with "an interpretation which leads to" the removal of obstacles to understanding.
(Got that from Google!)
Originally posted by Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing
View Post
Their absurd argument, with s58, is that the precise wording from 1987 is itself an obstacle to understanding.
Better nail it down with "an interpretation which leads to" the removal of obstacles to understanding.
(Got that from Google!)
Comment