Artic in the Lords today

[zathras]

Unfortunately the will of parliament is [probably] absolutlely irrelevant. The fact is that S660 was not updated to reflect this. The law lords are not empowered to look at the legislation and say "well we'll ignore this status because it's superceded by what the chancellor said".

It is relevent because the IR made it relevent. Part of their case is that they have not changed the way they act and to allow the CoA result to stand would open the floodgates (although interestingly they were quoted as saying in City A.M. that the estimated £1B cost to business was over stated and it would 'only' be £250m).

Apart from the fact there is a little thing called Pepper v Hart. This is a court case which basically allows for the statements of ministers to be used when legislation is uncertain.

[dang65]

In a real world, with an honest government, this would never have come to court in the first place.

Thing is, although I'm personally completely on Arctic's side in this case...

[Devil's Advocate]

...there are many people who would say that in a real world, with an honest government, people who try to reduce their tax liability should be hunted down like dogs. (Are dogs hunted down? ) The issue of risks taken and no sick pay, holiday pay, pension etc is not likely to gain much sympathy from people who are earning 25k and paying full income tax and NI for doing the same work as a contractor on 75k who's managed to find a way of avoiding thousands of pounds of tax. Permie employees have no way of splitting their income with their spouse, or of getting paid in dividends. That's their choice of course, just as it's our choice to take risks by working the way we do, but I can well imagine that many people would read this story and say, "Get in there HMRC and teach these scamming gits a lesson."

[/Devil's Advocate]

[BrilloPad]

but I can well imagine that many people would read this story and say, "Get in there HMRC and teach these scamming gits a lesson."

and I bet its the same people who are stupid enough to vote for who the sun tells them too.

[threaded]

Apart from the fact there is a little thing called Pepper v Hart. This is a court case which basically allows for the statements of ministers to be used when legislation is uncertain.

I thought Pepper v Hart was to be used when the governments legislation was written in barely legible crayon, and so could only refer to little Johnny's comments when he was crying in the bathroom or having a tantrum in the kitchen. What he was screaming in the garden doesn't count, because Katie was there.

[ASB]

It is relevent because the IR made it relevent. Part of their case is that they have not changed the way they act and to allow the CoA result to stand would open the floodgates (although interestingly they were quoted as saying in City A.M. that the estimated £1B cost to business was over stated and it would 'only' be £250m).

Apart from the fact there is a little thing called Pepper v Hart. This is a court case which basically allows for the statements of ministers to be used when legislation is uncertain.

Threaded sums up Pepper and Hart. My understanding is the same. i.e. if you can't actually work out what the legislation means because it is so poorly written and contradictory then will of parliament becomes relevant. But only then.

However I do not believe that S600A is unclear. What is unclear is whether HMRC interpretation of it in this case is consistant with the legislation as written.

[Flubster]

So, does the verdict get announced today?

[angusglover]

They lost didn't they and HMRC were told to get tough on contractors...so we get shafted again.

[Troll]

So, does the verdict get announced today?

It has already taken six years to resolve but a landmark tax case that yesterday began its final three-day hearing in the House of Lords may not be settled for at least another six weeks.

HTH

[angusglover]

Saw a report in the newspaper last night that said they had lost and HMRC were told to toughen up.....

[Troll]

Saw a report in the newspaper last night that said they had lost and HMRC were told to toughen up.....

Do you have a link?