Alan Kennedy wrote: SNIP... For Mr Basman to think he can dress up as a knight, get the government to change policy, annul his bankruptcy and somehow provide him with a business that provides him with a living (when it did not before) is truly cloud cuckoo land.
I'd call it quixotic -
Tell me who was the ignoramus who signed a warrant of arrest against such a knight as I? Who was he that did not know that knights-errant are independent of all jurisdictions... the fool that knows not that there are no letters of patent of nobility that confer such privileges or exemptions as a knight-errant acquires the day he is dubbed... ? What knight-errant ever paid poll-tax, duty, queen's pin-money, king's dues, toll or ferry? (Cervantes Don Quixote)
[Miguel de Cervantes became collector of revenues for the kingdom of Granada in 1594 and in order to remit the money he entrusted it to a merchant/banker who then absconded. His assets were insufficient to cover the whole amount lost so he was imprisoned in Seville in Sept. 1597. He was released after a year and finally died bankrupt (again) in the year 1616.]
John McKenna wrote:
(By the way, how sure are you that "the legal process appears to have been exhausted some time ago", and just when do you think that was, Justin?)
About nine pages ago, ha ha.
When Basman's appeal got thrown out.
John McKenna wrote:
This thread is not about saving the UKCC it is about pillorying someone who has offended your sensibilities.
When you start describing six-figure tax evasion as offending one's sensibilities, I think you write your own argument's epitaph.
Justin is right to say that (but I still disagree about "six-figure tax evasion" not being a matter of sensibilities). However, he didn't provide a link to a previous post in this thread in which it can be seen that Mr. B did try to appeal - on very shaky grounds according to the judge (see link in quoted post below) - but made a mistake regarding the time allowed to do so and his belated attempt was disallowed -
JustinHorton wrote: Neil Graham wrote:
The following judgement may be of assistance - it goes back to 2013. http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC ... 03334.html
. I make no comment on what the judge has to say in his ruling; I leave it to forum members to draw their own conclusions.
Going on to a further point raised by Justin and others; despite the above ruling it seems clear from the entry form that VAT wasn't levied or mentioned after the ruling.
So I would be right if I were to state that Mike Basman was informed that he should be adding VAT, lost a court case on the matter, was refused permission to appeal against that judgement and was nevertheless some years later still not adding VAT?
http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/vat/guide/ ... lties.html
6... The concepts of 'fraud' and 'negligence' for the purpose of administering penalties have been superseded by the concepts of 'deliberate' and 'careless' behaviour with effect from 24 Dec. 2008. The concepts of 'deliberate' and 'careless but not deliberate' have been introduced into VAT law.
When all is said and done the whole series of eccentric episodes seem, as I said, quixotic.
To find a for(u)m that accommodates the mess, that is the task of the artist now. (Samuel Beckett)