No To Retro Tax – Campaign Against Section 58 Finance Act 2008

[growler]

So let's get this straight. A member of HMRC was shown to have lied at a London hearing. Presumably he will face jail time for this?
I will willingly contribute significantly to any required funds to see this man locked up or his life otherwise ruined.

These c**** have no mercy on us, will go to any lengths to meet unjust goals (e.g. lying on oath). There should be no.mercy whatsoever given.

How much of this is a civil matter that needs following up and how much is for the tribunals to decide, does anyone know?

Everyone should feel this way.

I think Invisible Touch was the group's undisputed masterpiece

[SantaClaus]

Just in case any members didn't receive it, I've uploaded today's newsletter to the website.

Member’s Newsletters | No To Retrospective Taxation

Best regards

Santa

[OneUnited]

Did I miss something, I did not realise that a date had been set for the Huitson's FTT.

It took me a little by surprise when reading the newsletter, I thought the opinion was it might be heard this year but more likely next year, but no date had actually been set.

Anyway a very good newsletter once again excellent work NTRT.

[mossman]

CTDs

I would add a little colour.

The current series of CTD's operate as the previous poster advised. The immediately preceding series did not and did have an expiry date.

If you're not sure which one you have, ask HMRC.

If you want to preserve the interest on overdue tax protection AND interest on any cash being repaid (0.5%) then cash the CTD in on your HMRC account.

I didn't know there were old style and new style CTDs. What date did they change? I need to work out which mine is.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

NTRT's barrister - Anne Redston

Something that might interest you.

As well as being a barrister, she is also a Tribunal Judge. She has been a judge in over eighty FTTs in the past 4 years.

Select Judge "Redston, Anne Redston"
The Finance & Tax Tribunal

[PlaneSailing]

Common Sense

Big accountancy firm accused of saving people money


"we tend to look at the laws as they are rather than how some people think they should be."

Or in our case:

purposive interpretation of the law rather than a strict legal interpretation

[OnYourBikeGB]

Something that might interest you.

As well as being a barrister, she is also a Tribunal Judge. She has been a judge in over eighty FTTs in the past 4 years.

Select Judge "Redston, Anne Redston"
The Finance & Tax Tribunal

Reading this, it looks like we are in good hands.

Anne Redston - Barrister Profile - Tax Chambers

[OnYourBikeGB]

Does anyone know what the implications of the phrase 'purposive interpretation' are? Does this mean that the tribunal accepted HMRCs spin or does it mean that they allowed it but only to allow the argument to be progressed and a decision on whether it is appropriate or not will be made in the judgement?

[bollox]

Does anyone know what the implications of the phrase 'purposive interpretation' are? Does this mean that the tribunal accepted HMRCs spin or does it mean that they allowed it but only to allow the argument to be progressed and a decision on whether it is appropriate or not will be made in the judgement?

from legal english dictionary...


purposive interpretation

a theory of statutory interpretation which holds that a court should consider the purpose behind a piece of legislation when interpreting its meaning
The system of relying on an extrinsic source in determining the true intention of the Parliament is now seen as part of the purposive approach, the approach generally taken in the civil law jurisdictions of mainland Europe.

[travellingknob]

from legal english dictionary...


purposive interpretation

a theory of statutory interpretation which holds that a court should consider the purpose behind a piece of legislation when interpreting its meaning
The system of relying on an extrinsic source in determining the true intention of the Parliament is now seen as part of the purposive approach, the approach generally taken in the civil law jurisdictions of mainland Europe.

In other words HMRC have no case unless they can convince the judges to use purposive interpretation. I hope our barrister was able to quickly counter with the words of Norman Lamont "that is not the committee's main concern". Sadly I suspect not, sign of the times that HMRC even get away with submitting additional evidence on the last day.