Coalition to Launch TAX Evasion Clampdown

[L00b]

It is not bias to be using the definition used by those advancing an argument.

Suit yourself, I prefer to use common(-sense) definitions accepted and used by everyone (regardless of any ongoing argument), not by those 'advancing an argument' (who therefore have an at least inherent propensity to bias whatever they advance).

In the post I quoted, you said this....

To which I responded you are wrong. Case Law and precedent do not supersede primary legislation. Your argument is misconceived and wrong.

Your new primary legislation ("it is a duty to pay all of your tax liability") will not cancel out precedent ('earlier primary') legislation instigating the loopholes ("you don't have to pay X or Y") unless that precedent ('earlier primary') legislation is repealed (effectively closing the hitherto-legal loopholes): until then, it will conflict with it.

 

Your new primary legislation ("it is a duty to pay all of your tax liability") will not cancel out precedent case law (interpreting precedent ('earlier primary') legislation = "you don't have to pay X or Y"), until and unless a case is tried (either under the precedent ('earlier primary') legislation or your new primary legislation, doesn't matter) and new case law developed (overturning the earlier one/making it redundant): until then, it will conflict with it.

 

The only manner of resolving legal conflicts will be to clarify them, of course: through further legislation (or legislative amendments) in the first case, and trial(s) in the second case (both are of course not mutually exclusive). This, in the process, "will simply further enrich tax/legal practitioners who will be tasked and paid to try and revoke such new legislation...or -as usual- introduce 'exceptions'" (my quote).

 

So, exactly what I posted (this is the more verbose version, apologies to posters I bored in the process )

 

So, again, Wildcat: where have I posted that "case law supersedes primary legislation"?

[Wildcat]

Suit yourself, I prefer to use common(-sense) definitions accepted and used by everyone (regardless of any ongoing argument), not by those 'advancing an argument' (who therefore have an at least inherent propensity to bias whatever they advance).

Your new primary legislation ("it is a duty to pay all of your tax liability") will not cancel out precedent ('earlier primary') legislation instigating the loopholes ("you don't have to pay X or Y") unless that precedent ('earlier primary') legislation is repealed (effectively closing the hitherto-legal loopholes): until then, it will conflict with it.

 

If you don't use the definition that those advancing a case are using then it is no surprise you don't understand what they are saying. Infact refusing to use the same definition they are using is simply to deliberately avoid dealing with what is being said...

 

Your new primary legislation ("it is a duty to pay all of your tax liability") will not cancel out precedent case law (interpreting precedent ('earlier primary') legislation = "you don't have to pay X or Y"), until and unless a case is tried (either under the precedent ('earlier primary') legislation or your new primary legislation, doesn't matter) and new case law developed (overturning the earlier one/making it redundant): until then, it will conflict with it.

 

The only manner of resolving legal conflicts will be to clarify them, of course: through further legislation (or legislative amendments) in the first case, and trial(s) in the second case (both are of course not mutually exclusive). This, in the process, "will simply further enrich tax/legal practitioners who will be tasked and paid to try and revoke such new legislation...or -as usual- introduce 'exceptions'" (my quote).

 

So, exactly what I posted (this is the more verbose version, apologies to posters I bored in the process )

 

So, again, Wildcat: where have I posted that "case law supersedes primary legislation"?

 

You have just done so, and have just repeated the same claim.

 

Primary Legislation introducing a duty of tax compliance would overturn existing Case Law, not be subject to it.

[L00b]

If you don't use the definition that those advancing a case are using then it is no surprise you don't understand what they are saying. Infact refusing to use the same definition they are using is simply to deliberately avoid dealing with what is being said...

I understand perfectly well what you are saying, Wildcat. It does not make your definition any less biased, nor does it prompt me to subscribe any more to it. To use a definition, I would have to accept it: in the context of a debate, you'd do well to remember that

Primary Legislation introducing a duty of tax compliance would overturn existing Case Law, not be subject to it.

You do not appear to understand much about legal principles, Wildcat.

 

Primary Legislation (and English Law) is the Law, Case Law is its interpretation, developed within the context of trials ('cases'). Case Law 'stays' so long as it is not overturned (or changed, amended, adapted, etc.) within the context of trials, and accordingly evolves over time.

 

Nowhere have I stated that Primary Legislation would be subject to Case Law: I explained that Case Law (in the matter of tax avoidance) would subsist until it is overturned (by the application of new legislation or of new/evolving interpretation, necessarily within the context of a trial).

 

Case Law does not just 'cease to exist' because a new potentially-relevant or directly-relevant Act is voted in, since the interpretation of this new Act within the context of a new trial may well call upon it.

 

It's not until a matter is tried/there has to be a legal decision, for Case Law to evolve (...or disappear), regardless of what Parliament enacts in the meantime. Everything else (say, between the last trial under the 'old Law' and the next trial under the 'new Law', involving substantially the same issues and legal principles) is just legal opinions, without any binding or persuasive authority.

 

Now, in the context of your earlier post proposing primary legislation enacting a duty to "pay all of your tax liability", here's how it works:

• Parliament enacts the relevant Act
  
• Tax avoider goes to see accountant (how is this new Act affecting this-that-the other tax avoiding setup)
  
• Accoutant asks Counsel opinion (how enforceable is this new Act in view of existing tax avoiding setup)
  
• Counsel checks new Act, old Act, current Case Law and gives opinion (this section means this, that section means that, this other section is unenforceable because, this Case Law suggests this way, that Case Law suggests the other way, etc.)
  
• Accountant advises Tax avoider (who maintains or changes tax avoiding setup)
  
• HMRC eventually knocks on door under new Act and wants readies
  
• Tax avoider tells them to take a long running jump in the Don and jumps country after winding down his operation and expatriating the proceeds untaxed
  <joke aside>
  
• HMRC sue tax avoider under new Act, respective Counsels argue and cite Case Law
  
• 1st instance Judges eventually decide which of the cited Case Law still stands (optionally taking a swipe at inconsistencies/irregularities/incompatibilities in the new Act which justify maintaining the Case Law) and which of it is now irrelevant under new Act (a new legal test applies, or an existing one is modified, huzzah!)
  
• (i) Tax avoider loses, but appeals, Counsels again argue and cite Case Law
  
• (ii) Tax avoider wins, new Act is toothless in this case, but HMRC appeals, Counsels again argue and cite Case Law
  
• 2nd instance (Appeal) Judges eventually decide which of the cited Case Law still stands, which of it is now irrelevant (regardless of whatever the 1st instance Judges said)
  
• Might eventually make it all the way up to the House of Lords

[Wildcat]

A definition in and of itself cannot be biased, it is arguments where bias appears. A word can be loaded, by bringing in negative associations in which case the response is to highight what that loading is. Refusing to deal with an argument because you don't like their use of the language is issue avoidance. Ps remind me not to take legal advice from you in future, since any advice you give would be likely to get people in trouble because your discounting of primary legislation until a case has been brought and prosecuted would be likely to make the recipient of your advice being the one facing prosecution

[L00b]

A definition in and of itself cannot be biased, it is arguments where bias appears. A word can be loaded, by bringing in negative associations in which case the response is to highight what that loading is. Refusing to deal with an argument because you don't like their use of the language is issue avoidance.

I am not refusing to deal with your argument, I am refusing to use your definition.

 

Besides, I believe we're pretty much agreed on what "tax avoidance" means, just not agreed on what a "legal loophole" means.

Ps remind me not to take legal advice from you in future, since any advice you give would be likely to get people in trouble because your discounting of primary legislation until a case has been brought and prosecuted would be likely to make the recipient of your advice being the one facing prosecution

Bringing some Straw Man into the mix, I see. Strange that, I often see you complaining of the practice, not instigating it