boabie 230 Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 So HMRC could claim despite the fact that the tax laws in place at the time of EBT's may have been adhered to??? What they are saying Rab is, that the tax laws in place at the time were NOT adhered to. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 What they are saying Rab is, that the tax laws in place at the time were NOT adhered to. And that is what this whole thing is about. That is why it is in court. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,337 Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 What they are saying Rab is, that the tax laws in place at the time were NOT adhered to. I realise that butI have yet to hear anyone explain in what way they were not adhered to. They certainly seemed ok at the FTTT & UTTT but only since the three stooges came up with their 'common sense' has there been anything to the contrary. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boabie 230 Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 I realise that butI have yet to hear anyone explain in what way they were not adhered to. They certainly seemed ok at the FTTT & UTTT but only since the three stooges came up with their 'common sense' has there been anything to the contrary. The three stooges seemed to imply that common sense should take precedence over statute. Fortunately in this country that's not how things work. Imo their decision will get overturned. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 The three stooges seemed to imply that common sense should take precedence over statute. Fortunately in this country that's not how things work. Imo their decision will get overturned. Statute should be based on common sense in the first place but that is not always the case. The law is the law and you can't have judges making their own version of the law. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boabie 230 Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 Statute should be based on common sense in the first place but that is not always the case. The law is the law and you can't have judges making their own version of the law. As was famously stated , " This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice." ~ Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,318 Posted March 18, 2016 Share Posted March 18, 2016 Statute should be based on common sense in the first place but that is not always the case. The law is the law and you can't have judges making their own version of the law. Very much so. But that is what these three "learned and well respected" judges did, despite knowing exactly what you just wrote. You just hope everyone at our club is preparing for another round of assault on our titles. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted March 18, 2016 Share Posted March 18, 2016 I can't see how we can lose in the SC based on the premise of how we lost. For me it's common sense that you can only judge a case on common sense if the law is based on common sense, otherwise you have changed the law after the fact. Logic follows that breaking the law due to common sense is equivalent. The normal thing is to make some rules that you think are fair, people then know to play by the rules. If some people find a loophole in the rule, you make the rules better and close them. If fudging the rules means people's lives are at risk then you can have overarching rules that require you to have a duty of care. When it's tax, the rules are just a game. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,337 Posted March 18, 2016 Share Posted March 18, 2016 You have to wonder whether there was outside influence on the three strooges 'common sense' verdict 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted March 18, 2016 Share Posted March 18, 2016 (edited) You have to wonder whether there was outside influence on the three strooges 'common sense' verdict Do you mean a payment from Lloyds bank or the HMRC? Or a knee job from a former............. Edited March 18, 2016 by pete 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.