HMRC used CUK posts in the Judicial Review

[SantaClaus]

If that is so, we will have to add HMRC to the list of village idiots.
Is this whole government and its apparatus a complete laughing stock?

I think the head of HMRC, Harnett, should be put in the village stocks.

[cojak]

<sidles away from SantaClaus...>

[thunderlizard]

HMRC's intention was to show that people who used the scheme were aware that it was risky, and therefore it was their own fault if they disposed of the income rather than setting the monies on one side. Basically their argument was that if people were now facing bankruptcy or their health/marriages had suffered, then they had brought this on themselves.

and that's hardly a valid argument. Showing that people lived, or should have lived, in fear of liquidation does not in any way imply that the liquidation would be fair or legal.

[SantaClaus]

and that's hardly a valid argument. Showing that people lived, or should have lived, in fear of liquidation does not in any way imply that the liquidation would be fair or legal.

If you abide by the law, you dont expect to make provisions in case the law is changed retrospectively.

A tax avoidance scheme was used and not challenged for 7 years. If after years 1, 2 or 3, HMRC had definite proof the scheme didnt work, then I could understand having to put the money aside.

However, the evidence points to HMRC having proof that the scheme did work according to tax law at the time, and thus they were loathe to challenge it in front of the Special Commissioners and so the impression they gave was that the avoidance method could continue.

[OwlHoot]

This may be of general interest.

HMRC submitted posts from the BN66 thread as evidence to the Judicial Review.

On the morning of the 2nd day in Court, their barrister read out a series of posts, including some of mine.

Sadly, he didn't refer to our usernames because that would have sounded ridiculous ("DonkeyRhubarb", "bollox", "maddog"). He just said "someone said this" and "someone else said that".

Also, I was disappointed that the screenshots were taken from before I installed the Donkey avatar. I would loved to have seen the look on the Judge's face when he read what was scrawled on the coat.

HMRC's intention was to show that people who used the scheme were aware that it was risky, and therefore it was their own fault if they disposed of the income rather than setting the monies on one side. Basically their argument was that if people were now facing bankruptcy or their health/marriages had suffered, then they had brought this on themselves.

We have it on good authority that HMRC continue to monitor the forum.

I reckon any judge worth their salt should have disallowed that argument, as being based on unreliable evidence.

After all, who is to say (in principle) that the posters weren't stooges from HMR&C itself, making these posts to advance their case?

[Tarquin Farquhar]

If you abide by the law, you dont expect to make provisions in case the law is changed retrospectively.

A tax avoidance scheme was used and not challenged for 7 years. If after years 1, 2 or 3, HMRC had definite proof the scheme didnt work, then I could understand having to put the money aside.

However, the evidence points to HMRC having proof that the scheme did work according to tax law at the time, and thus they were loathe to challenge it in front of the Special Commissioners and so the impression they gave was that the avoidance method could continue.

If you abide by the law, and you dont make provisions in case the law is changed retrospectively, then you have not yet understood New Labour's need for cash and willingness to do whatever it takes to get it.

[SantaClaus]

If you abide by the law, and you dont make provisions in case the law is changed retrospectively, then you have not yet understood New Labour's need for cash and willingness to do whatever it takes to get it.

Sure, I understand. I just don't think their need is compatible with the Human Rights act

[threaded]

I reckon any judge worth their salt should have disallowed that argument, as being based on unreliable evidence.

After all, who is to say (in principle) that the posters weren't stooges from HMR&C itself, making these posts to advance their case?

Well, and even if they weren't stooges, some might be contractors who were contracting for HMR&C at the time they made posts.

So there's jeopardy for thee, and accusations of incitement.

[Incognito]

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1995..._en_1#pb1-l1g1

Admissibility of hearsay evidence

1 Admissibility of hearsay evidence

(1) In civil proceedings evidence shall not be excluded on the ground that it is hearsay.

HTH

[travellingknob]

If you abide by the law, and you dont make provisions in case the law is changed retrospectively, then you have not yet understood New Labour's need for cash and willingness to do whatever it takes to get it.

Haha, yes i think that sums it up entirely.

The uk government is strapped for cash regardless whether its the outgoing one or future incoming one. Thats the whole reason why HMRC employees got incentivized through annual bonuses and reason why they in turn will lie/cheat/change/misrepresent/act unfairly/do whatever it takes. MONEY