Https:// That’s what I wanted to say at April 5, – The Scottish Football Monitor

Https:// That’s what I wanted to say at April 5, …

Comment on Look Back to Look Forward by woodstein.

That’s what I wanted to say at April 5, 2016 at 10:16

5 stars to The Clumpany  *****

woodstein Also Commented

Look Back to Look Forward
motor red
April 5, 2016 at 23:37
“ If they want to comply in the big charade”
“What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”

(Hitchens Razor.)  04

Look Back to Look Forward
The  “Newspaper of The Year” has arisen from slumber today!
Shock horror,
In a story on the Mossack  Fonseca leak it opines interalia

Newspaper Of The Year View
“They robbed the tax from the poor to pay the rich and we all let it happen”
“But this blatent , immoral self-interest lies on our own doorstep”
“Semantics have been key in perpetuating the myth that there has been “no wrong doing”” *
“Tax evasion is illegal tax avoidance is not – but there is a fag paper  of difference in their dishonesty and nothing between their immorality”
That last one is the best of all.

*No mention of  “phantom” tax bills this time. 12

Look Back to Look Forward
“I said I thought Article 7 related to criminality.”
  It does, the link below confirms this, or if anybody would rather read the salient
Points  here they are.
I thought the last line was the icing on the cake?

A clash of moral imperatives

Since ethics seem to be pervading the world of tax, let us conclude that retrospective legislation is nothing other than a clash of moral imperatives. Few would disagree with the proposition that the rule of law is at the core of democracy and that retrospective legislation is therefore morally reprehensible. However, the vast majority will accept willingly that taxes are needed to enable the government to fulfil its public duties and that those who seek to avoid sharing the burden should accept the risk inherent in their decision.”
“Although tax sometimes does feel like a punishment, it is outside scope of Article 7, as it does not belong to the criminal sphere. (Tax penalties are arguably within Article 7 (see Jussila v Finland (73053/01) [2006] ECHR 996.)
Taxpayers have had to rely on a different human right to appeal against the use of retrospective tax legislation: the right to property. This right was not originally included in the ECHR, which perhaps shows the difficulties governments had with the very concept of an enforceable right to property. After several failed attempts, the right was enshrined in Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR:

“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions (…) The preceding provisions shall not, however in any way impair the right of a State (…) to secure the payment of taxes…”

“So there you have it: the very Article which is intended to protect citizens against the arbitrary confiscation of their property is subject to the caveat that states need to be able to raise taxes. This is not very promising. Indeed, Stanley Burton J commented in R (ex parte Federation of Tour Operators and others v HM Treasury) [2008] STC 547 that “the hurdle for the taxpayer on A1P1 is very high”.

Cathya Djanogly is a professional support lawyer in the Tax Disputes & Investigations team at Pinsent Masons LLP.

Recent Comments by woodstein

To Comply or not to Comply ?
June 22, 2018 at 17:00
Helloooooooo??? Anyone there? 
Probably all glued to the telly.

Something to do with a big cup?

To Comply or not to Comply ?
June 9, 2018 at 21:14
Rate This
From Rangers Fans Website:
Daviesleftpeg Posted on June 9, 2018Flimflam, Monkeyshines and BoondoggleNews is reaching us today, via a number of sources, on the topic of Club 1872 and the Rangers share offer.
Looks like you have an exclusive.  Mr Peg has removed his post  (oops.)

To Comply or not to Comply ?
11-mur180411 – Copy *
If anyone wants to escape current incoming fire, Rangers Tax Case posted the above* last September , so it is not new
(It may be old news to some)  but as a PDF file it can be downloaded and read at any time.
I found it fascinating.
Warning it is LONG!

To Comply or not to Comply ?
June 8, 2018 at 22:05  
“All I would ask is for The Lawman to have a good look at the Govt Link I have posted numerous times and give me his honest interpretation of it as an evidently intelligent and polite human bear.”
Frustrating isn’t it.
I worked all my life in Insurance and I had similar problems getting people to read the fantastic documents.
One of the risks covered by a Business Combined policy or as a stand alone cover was Loss of Licence (Liquor) So I visited quite a few Clubs (working mens,  golf, bowling etc.
When I asked if they were  incorporated or unincorporated their eyes narrowed.
Why? They invariably asked.
Because this form asks for name on the first line, and if you are incorporated
It will be Auchinshoogle Bowling Club Limited
If you are not it will be the committee and members of the
Auchinshoogle Bowling Club
Then company/club legal differences were explained, and a discussion on the merits of incorporation.
I got wise to this and arranged for a local solicitor to have this typed out, reducing the hassle.

To Comply or not to Comply ?
Vegemite ?

Yeast gives me wind too 07

On that note 21

SSL Certificates