What the Solicitors are not able to say
Posted: 18 May 2010
The legal update by Mr Dass on the High Court Judgement in Mobilx, CallTell & Blue Sphere is of interest to all concerned with HMRC continued so called extended verification exercise over the last 4 years. Especially those of us who have waited this length of time for a hearing of what HMRC claim to know and consequently their case against us. How the Court of Appeal judges could conclude agreement to HMRC version of Kittel would appear against all logic. Kittel is known to be corrupted by translation from French, it refers to a situation that even HMRC have abandoned (non activity), and although Appeal Court Judges are impartial, the use of not one, but two ex HMRC prosecution solicitors, with the third who appears to be a ‘listener in’ for possible similar cases in Dubai, poses the question of who is ‘at war’ with whom?
Why were these judges selected? Are the legal system fed up with HMRC appealing almost all cases it feels it does not agree with? Hoping HMRC will not continue to make lack of judgement statements against it ex members.
Does someone in Court Management feel that by using ex HMRC prosecutors it will give advantage to this party? Bear in mind that Court Management (including Tribunals) are allocated by HMRC or ex HMRC officers (awaiting retirement!).
The first line of quote by Lord Justice Moses (HMRC Prosecution solicitor (1985-1990) does not quote the Chancellor or Master of Rolls. but quotes from another senior judge, and concludes in similar fashion.
As Mr Dass points out, both he and Lord Justice Carnwath (HMRC prosecution solicitor 1980-1985) appear out of touch with the facts of this case, and what the 800 or so other parties expected of them.
Vantis solicitors comments appear a logical response to these decisions.
‘All in all, this judgment, whilst not delivering the coup de grace hoped for by some to HMRC’s “means of knowledge” arguments, provides food for thought, and represents a welcome move away from the almost slavish devotion to examination of due diligence which has been such a feature of MTIC VAT appeals.’
There is nothing to fear here for those traders who are able to present a solid, credible mode of trading and demonstrate that they have taken proper, reasonable precautions in the market to safeguard against becoming tainted by fraud.’
One can but ask why such a, or similar, statement was not made by the appeal judges.
Written By One of the 800.
AI
