I think I commented on the FTT/UT decisions previously. Due to the stupid new edit block feature I won't be commenting on it here (as I can no longer simply edit comments re typos etc.*). Except to say it doesn’t really seem to be on any points of law re M & C thankfully.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/1705.html
*Another example of how this once great website's usefulness gets more & more diminished by stupid, unnecessary changes.
Replies (18)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
What is of most interest is the CA's slapping down of the UT for essentially overturning FTT decisions which find the facts and evaluate them without the UT showing why it was not a decision which the FTT was entitled to come to, even if they disagreed with it.
Too often they seem to bypass the Edwards v Bairstow test and find a somewhat spurious point of law on which to overturn it. If this sounds like sour grapes, it's because it is.
The problem is that you don't merely correct typos "etc" when you edit your comments, Justin.
If a comment is deserving of material alteration, that can easily be dealt with by a fresh post - which is just as quick as, if not quicker than, editing an existing post.
If you're still unhappy about the change, why not take your complaint to Fox News or NewsMax - they might give you some air time.
No idea which part of my comment you think is wrong, but hey ho.
I also made the point elsewhere that an amendment to a comment many months after the event, especially in a long thread, is very likely to go unread. If you want to draw an important change to folks' attention far better to post a new comment or better still a new thread. You may say I'm wrong if you wish.
Its not that interesting that it needed posting 3 times :-)
I stand by my comments at 10:44, 15:03 and 17:17 on 15th Sep 2020 in this thread:
https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/any-answers/ppr-claim
Your ability to misconstrue whatever you read knows no bounds. This is a bog standard case report; there is no editorial comment. Your claim that Taxation agrees with your view is unfounded.
Thank you for providing further evidence supporting my observation that you misconstrue everything you read. I assume that your comment is earnestly made and not tongue-in-cheek. The insult militates against there being any bonhomie in your post.
Printing a precis of a case is not commentating on it. It's very likely that Taxation does agree with you, but as the editors have not expressed an opinion, no one can say so for certain and you shouldn't have made the claim you did.
It it's a waste of time, then why bother making a trivial edit in the first place?
If I was going to edit a post (with something worth reading) I think that I would want to have it brought to folks' attention. Otherwse it seems rather pointless to edit a comment just for the sake of it.