@richardjmurphy: I hope this is ignorance, not lying

Second, the statement doesn’t note that Vodafone fought this for nine years and lost all the way.

No, they didn\’t.

They won all the way to the Court of Appeal.

They won at the Special Commissioners, they won in the High Court.

The essential question was: Do the CFC rules apply to EU subsidiaries?

Special Commissioners said \”No\”. High Court said \”No\”.

Court of Appeal said \”maybe\”.

And how do we know that Vodafone won? Because it was HMRC that appealed the two junior decisions.

Anyone and everyone is allowed their own opinions on whether CFC should or should not apply. But no one is allowed their own facts.

And we get a response!

\"Richard

@RichardJMurphy Richard Murphy
@worstall I don\’t do lying….they lost because the courts denied them the right to appeal their loss – that\’s losing all the way I think
Err, no, it isn\’t. Losing all the way is losing at each stage. Losing at the end is losing the last case.

11 comments on “@richardjmurphy: I hope this is ignorance, not lying

  1. Even more amusingly, what Vodafone won on was not the detail of the law, not a little ‘loophole’ that they squeezed through, but the over-riding “spirit” of EU law.

    You know, that “spirit of the law” that we used to hear so much about from the likes of Murphy.

    They seem to have gone quiet on it now though.

  2. Ignorance? Do we really expect anything else from the man?

    Although I think this comes to the extent, especially given his Twitter response, of delusion.

  3. “The issue with which the Special Commissioners were then concerned relevant to this appeal was whether the CFC Legislation could be interpreted, as required by s.2(4) European Communities Act 1972, in a manner which did not unlawfully restrict V2’s freedom of establishment, as declared by the ECJ in Cadbury Schweppes. One of them, Mr Walters QC, thought that it could; the other of them, Mr Wallace, concluded that it could not. As the former was in the chair he was entitled to a second or casting vote and his view prevailed.

    V2’s appeal to the High Court came before Evans-Lombe J. He agreed with the view of Mr Wallace. He held that it is not possible to interpret the CFC Legislation so as to conform to the freedom of establishment of V2 under Article 43 EC as declared by the ECJ in Cadbury Schweppes. In those circumstances he “disapplied the CFC Legislation as contrary to Community Law”. This is the appeal of HMRC from the order of Evans-Lombe J.”

    Incidentally although the Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords (as was at the time), Vodafone 2 petitioned the Law Lords directly anyway. This was eventually refused by the Supreme Court (having replaced the House of Lords in the meantime) on the grounds that Vodafone’s application “did not raise an arguable point of law of general public importance which ought to be considered by the Supreme Court at this time.”

    Of course, there was still the European Court of Justice who the Court of Appeal deferred to when they said “maybe”.

    But it’s all a bit academic when, as you highlighted recently, the European Commission subsequently found the CFC rules to be incompatible with EU law.

  4. A description of another Richard seems apt: “a no good, lying bastard. He can lie out of both sides of his mouth at the same time, and if he ever caught himself telling the truth, he’d lie just to keep his hand in.”

  5. For much of the nine years, Vodafone were winning – “losing all the way” is just wrong. Richie’s defence of his mistake is pathetic, and is the point at which an innocent mistake becomes a lie.

    Incidentally, most tax advisers expected Vodafone to win had they pursued the case to the ECJ. It is speculated that they settled because having so large a reserve in their accounts for so long was unsettling investors.

  6. That smug accountant’s face beaming out at you gets just that little bit more punchable each and every day.

  7. The original claim might have been ignorance, but the defence is so disingenuous (it’s a “clarification” worthy of Sarah Palin or George W) it must count as a lie.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.