It seems that a much more detailed (entirely polite) post I made earlier has not materialised. The public criticism that began this thread was apparently perfectly acceptable but it appears that others are protected and critical posts removed.
So, much more succinctly, WebberG was true to his word & approached both myself and Hoey’s solicitors re a meeting to exchanges views. But when asked to provide bone fides and to answer, offline, the two key questions put to him, he chose not to respond but to post more misleading claims on a different forum.
The claimed “other weapons” in this thread it seems amount to a false claim about the facts presented to the FTT in Hoey (which can be disproved from reviewing the witness statements and transcripts) and a box fresh, “further idea” that can only be described as one Baldrick would be proud of. That s684(7A) ITEPA can turn off the obligation to account for PAYE in one section of Chapter 3, Part 11 ITEPA 2003 but not another that immediately precedes it. That it can disapply the obligation from one payer but not another, entirely contrary to what Higgs decided. And was predicated on the basis that you get “nowhere near” the very provisions you actually have to rely on to make someone other than the recipient liable.
It is the Crown Jewels that are being hidden from view only if you give that term it’s slang meaning!
Caveat Emptor.
I’m off. Bon chance.
So, much more succinctly, WebberG was true to his word & approached both myself and Hoey’s solicitors re a meeting to exchanges views. But when asked to provide bone fides and to answer, offline, the two key questions put to him, he chose not to respond but to post more misleading claims on a different forum.
The claimed “other weapons” in this thread it seems amount to a false claim about the facts presented to the FTT in Hoey (which can be disproved from reviewing the witness statements and transcripts) and a box fresh, “further idea” that can only be described as one Baldrick would be proud of. That s684(7A) ITEPA can turn off the obligation to account for PAYE in one section of Chapter 3, Part 11 ITEPA 2003 but not another that immediately precedes it. That it can disapply the obligation from one payer but not another, entirely contrary to what Higgs decided. And was predicated on the basis that you get “nowhere near” the very provisions you actually have to rely on to make someone other than the recipient liable.
It is the Crown Jewels that are being hidden from view only if you give that term it’s slang meaning!
Caveat Emptor.
I’m off. Bon chance.
Originally posted by DealorNoDeal
View Post
Comment