Amazingly, I oppose something that Dame Margaret, Lady Hodge, supports

For this rather comes under the general rubric about power and the law. You never, ever, want to put into the law something that you don’t want your enemy or rival using against you and yours. And we really would have fun using this.

12 thoughts on “Amazingly, I oppose something that Dame Margaret, Lady Hodge, supports”

  1. “Closely followed by HMRC attempting to insist upon payment of disputed tax bills before a court has ruled upon the issue.”

    Tim

    Not quite sure if I’m missing the point you’re making but HMRC already DO (in certain cases) insist upon payment of disputed tax bills before a court has ruled on the issue.

    Advance Payment Notices.

  2. Also, it’s a bit cuntish to attach Magnitsky’s name to the amendment.

    Bit like saying that if you oppose it you must be in favour of illegal detention and killing people in prison.

  3. Philip Scott Thomas

    We are heading for a dark place with this.

    Indeed. Asset seizure/forfeiture has become a serious civil rights problem in the US. You’d think we’d learn a lesson from what happening there.

  4. Quite, they do. So, under this amendment we would be able to sue them for doing so. And garnish all the assets of all public servants who have been doing so.

  5. Hold on Timmy, have you just made a good argument for the amendment there?

    Then again, it’s not that we’d ever really be allowed to use it against the tax thieves.

    But maybe there should be a law specifically to allow that, along with personal liability for said thieves.

  6. Politicos and parliamentary draftsmen are dullards, and the sharpies will always find two loopholes for every word in a statute.

    The fewer laws, the better, and the more concise the better.

  7. Asset seizure/forfeiture has become a serious civil rights problem in the US. You’d think we’d learn a lesson from what happening there.

    They have. They get loads of great free stuff by taking it from other people.

  8. FredZ: That’s why Brexit is up before the Supreme Court. Call Me Dave put no thought into writing the Referendum Act as he was so cock-sure Brexit would not win, resulting in a law so full of holes it makes a string vest blush.

  9. Ah, I see now. I thought you were saying that the new legislation would LEAD to HMRC collecting disputed taxes. Now I see you meant it would lead to us suing them if they did.

    Although APNs haven’t been considered an infringement of Human Rights as although there is no appeal, there is the possibility of seeking a judicial review and it doesn’t decide whose money the tax is, just where the money sits whilst the tax case is decided….well that’s what the judge said. The ‘Rowe’ case. It’s off to the court of appeal.

  10. Your headline, Tim, unaccountably contained neither the expression “tax avoider” nor “tax evader”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *