• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Pinsent Masons/Ingenious JR heard in the High Court last week"

Collapse

  • DonkeyRhubarb
    replied
    Originally posted by DotasScandal View Post
    A bit surprised that no one reported about it... I mean, not even someone tweeting about it or something. I could not find anything.

    Wait and pray and see, I guess...
    You can bet it will be reported when a decision comes out. I predict the following type of lurid headline.

    "Court rules that tax dodging is not a Human Right"

    Leave a comment:


  • DotasScandal
    replied
    Originally posted by webberg View Post
    The hearing would have been public (justice mist be seen to be done) and I suspect that the written decision will also be public.
    A bit surprised that no one reported about it... I mean, not even someone tweeting about it or something. I could not find anything.

    Wait and pray and see, I guess...

    Leave a comment:


  • webberg
    replied
    The hearing would have been public (justice mist be seen to be done) and I suspect that the written decision will also be public.

    This will be on the Administrative Court website

    Leave a comment:


  • BrilloPad
    replied
    Originally posted by webberg View Post
    Judges are generally fair in my experience.
    Judge Parker against montpelier in their judicial review. MP were criticized for not pushing harder for a resolution. MP proposed to go to FTTT in 2006/2007 which HMRC rejected. Instead they bought out retrospective legislation.

    Family court judges are mostly total scum. But they have the advantage of having their decisions kept private.

    Leave a comment:


  • DonkeyRhubarb
    replied
    Originally posted by DotasScandal View Post
    Was that a public hearing at all?

    It would be interesting to know what point PM put forward.
    Yes it would have been in public, probably at the Royal Courts of Justice.

    The hearing doesn't appear to have been reported much, so we'll probably have to wait for the decision to find out what arguments were advanced.

    I'd be astounded if the Judge finds in favour of the taxpayers.

    Leave a comment:


  • DotasScandal
    replied
    Originally posted by webberg View Post
    We understand the Pinsent Masons are relatively upbeat about the hearing (but they would say that) but it may be months before we get a decision.
    Was that a public hearing at all?

    It would be interesting to know what point PM put forward.

    Leave a comment:


  • webberg
    replied
    Judges are generally fair in my experience.

    Some in tax cases have said things along the lines of "I hate tax avoiders but this works" or "if that's how HMRC wrote the rules then that's how it works".

    In cases where distinctions are less clear the lower tier tax judges will turn cartwheels to find for HMRC but here we're looking at non tax judges.

    We understand the Pinsent Masons are relatively upbeat about the hearing (but they would say that) but it may be months before we get a decision.

    Leave a comment:


  • StrengthInNumbers
    replied
    Originally posted by malvolio View Post
    Don't be silly! They seem to delight in doing just that these days.
    For example?

    Leave a comment:


  • malvolio
    replied
    Originally posted by StrengthInNumbers View Post
    It will be very difficult to get a judge who is brave enough to go against government.
    Don't be silly! They seem to delight in doing just that these days.

    Leave a comment:


  • StrengthInNumbers
    replied
    It will be very difficult to get a judge who is brave enough to go against government.

    Leave a comment:


  • DotasScandal
    replied
    "Notwithstanding how abhorrent the legislation, it will be a brave High Court Judge who will find in favour of taxpayers as it is highly likely that the decision will be spread across the front pages of the broadsheets and tabloids alike!"

    All eyes on this for sure. We should know soon enough if the UK has reverted to a full blown tyranny or not just yet.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pinsent Masons/Ingenious JR heard in the High Court last week

    http://www.uhy-uk.com/wp-content/upl...-July-2015.pdf

    A decision could be anywhere from a couple of weeks to many months.

    Whatever the outcome, it will probably be appealed to the Court of Appeal.

    Some commentators expect it will go all the way to the Supreme Court.
    http://www.taxadvisermagazine.com/ar...attle-commence

Working...
X