BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

If i have something to say i will "stand up" and say it.

You bet. You did that in the JR. Hilarious!

I think the caption uder your names says it all really...

[SantaClaus]

If i have something to say i will "stand up" and say it.

I am having to do a lot of research into the Huitson case to prepare for my own case in March (you are all invited).

I have come to the conclusion that Justice Parker was correct for one simple reason which (in my humble opinion) cannot be defended.

The IR35 scheme used a "sleight of hand trick" to get round the 1987 "Padmore" legislation (which itself was retrospective to the late 1940's) i.e. take the Padmore scheme and insert a "transparent" trust between the partnership and the taxpayer.

Therefore (according to Parker) the promoter and the users of the scheme should have been prepared for the same treatment i.e. retrospection.

ZZzzzzzzzzzzz

[StellaFan]

I think the caption uder your names says it all really...

[PlaneSailing]

I would gladly accept the same level of retrospective tax demands as the people affected by the 1987 Padmore legislation.

Where do I sign up for my Padmore comparable settlement?

Definitely. That sounds fair to me!

[johnnyguitar]

If i have something to say i will "stand up" and say it.

I am having to do a lot of research into the Huitson case to prepare for my own case in March (you are all invited).

I have come to the conclusion that Justice Parker was correct for one simple reason which (in my humble opinion) cannot be defended.

The IR35 scheme used a "sleight of hand trick" to get round the 1987 "Padmore" legislation (which itself was retrospective to the late 1940's) i.e. take the Padmore scheme and insert a "transparent" trust between the partnership and the taxpayer.

Therefore (according to Parker) the promoter and the users of the scheme should have been prepared for the same treatment i.e. retrospection.

I fail to understand why you would spend so much time studying our case. Yours is with Monptpelier whereas ours is with HRMC - quite different things I suspect.
And you chose which side you want to be on whilst collaborating with HMRC during the hearing and attempting to derail our process.
I was sat right in front of you and I am still fuming that, whilst thinking purely about yourself, you would be willing to 'deal with HMRC' which could result in many people and their families losing their homes.
To so openly do that in front of the people that are tring to have a fair hearing is beyond understanding.

I am under no illusion that you are not a friend to anyone on hear so don't expect us to listen/care about you & your case.

I want our case to be finished with ASAP - but I hope yours comes to a conclusion even quicker, so I don't have to listen to any more of your unobjective (sp?), ramblings.

[poppy01]

If i have something to say i will "stand up" and say it.

I am having to do a lot of research into the Huitson case to prepare for my own case in March (you are all invited).

I have come to the conclusion that Justice Parker was correct for one simple reason which (in my humble opinion) cannot be defended.

The IR35 scheme used a "sleight of hand trick" to get round the 1987 "Padmore" legislation (which itself was retrospective to the late 1940's) i.e. take the Padmore scheme and insert a "transparent" trust between the partnership and the taxpayer.

Therefore (according to Parker) the promoter and the users of the scheme should have been prepared for the same treatment i.e. retrospection.

You should know old chap. After all you came up with it! Just wish you'd thought of this before signing me up.

[OnYourBikeGB]

You should know old chap. After all you came up with it! Just wish you'd thought of this before signing me up.

I wouldn't pay him much attention. He had all kinds of reasons why it wouldn't work before the hearing, none of them seemed to make any difference. Now he agrees with the judge. Big deal. He's just blowing with the wind and trying a wind-up. Even what he was passed on slips of paper to HMRC during the hearing or meetings or whatever he had, doesn't appear to have held any water. Our future has nothing to do with him, he's just a pointless distraction. If we win or lose, it'll have nothing to do with AJ, but I'm sure he'll pop up afterwards, claiming credit either way.

[normalbloke]

If i have something to say i will "stand up" and say it.

I am having to do a lot of research into the Huitson case to prepare for my own case in March (you are all invited).

I have come to the conclusion that Justice Parker was correct for one simple reason which (in my humble opinion) cannot be defended.

The IR35 scheme used a "sleight of hand trick" to get round the 1987 "Padmore" legislation (which itself was retrospective to the late 1940's) i.e. take the Padmore scheme and insert a "transparent" trust between the partnership and the taxpayer.

Therefore (according to Parker) the promoter and the users of the scheme should have been prepared for the same treatment i.e. retrospection.

Well done. Just the place to highlight a 'fatal flaw' then. And just the time to do it. I suspect its a load of old tosh as it hasn't been highlighted before with keener legal brains than yours on the case. But it would be really good if you just shut t f up and left us in peace.

[normalbloke]

Padmore

..and what also really puzzles me, is how the Padmore case wasn't even in the ballpark until 2008 and now seems the central axiom on which it all hinges. In 2002-2008 no-one even mentioned it .. or did they?

[BolshieBastard]

If i have something to say i will "stand up" and say it.

I am having to do a lot of research into the Huitson case to prepare for my own case in March (you are all invited).

I have come to the conclusion that Justice Parker was correct for one simple reason which (in my humble opinion) cannot be defended.

The IR35 scheme used a "sleight of hand trick" to get round the 1987 "Padmore" legislation (which itself was retrospective to the late 1940's) i.e. take the Padmore scheme and insert a "transparent" trust between the partnership and the taxpayer.

Therefore (according to Parker) the promoter and the users of the scheme should have been prepared for the same treatment i.e. retrospection.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Yep, just like that piece of excrement that wont flush down the bog or, the jobbie someone leaves in a swimming pool, here you are again.

Bobbing up to the surface and everyone keeping you at (more than) arms length.

You'd think you'd get the message by now. No one gives a **** about you, your opinion or you case.