I thought by now most firms would simply confirm dates of employment and nothing more, for fear of litigation if they made any subjective comments. Surely the firm would be obliged to provide this as a minimum and a prospective employer would understand if that was all they could obtain?
That being so, it was unnecessary for the ex-employee to resort to such desperate measures anyway.
Strange case really.
But that's exactly the point. I would agree with you, were it not for the fact that she's married to the very person most capable of changing the rules. The Chancellor would be the reformer, but he won't be when he's so heavily conflicted.
The moral duty is the Chancellor's, not his wife's. He should have recognised the conflict of interest.
These archaic, anachronistic and unnecessarily complicating rules ought to be scrapped, but Sunak won't do it.
What we are witnessing though, is the sinking of any hopes Sunak had of becoming Prime Minister. My bet is he'll leave politics soon after he leaves No.11. He was popular doing the easy handing out money stuff, but he's been exposed as hopelessly out of touch and politically inept once the going got tough.
What exactly is "appropriate" about that?
The logic of that appropriateness is that anyone with foreign investments ought to be completing an array of tax returns in whatever jurisdiction their investments reside.
It makes for more sense, and is far simpler, to use personal residence as the basis for all taxation.
Agreed. This seems to be a desperate attempt to recoup 'losses' from a failed avoidance scheme.
It's absolutely right that Counsel's opinion is ultimately just another opinion and over-reliance on it is unwise. I think it was Thornhill himself who said that the only 100% certainty is to pay the tax and 75% probability of success is the most he would ever give, even in the most apparently rock solid of circumstances.
The scheme promoters seem to have been clear enough that Thornhill was their QC, not the investors', who must take independent advice.
The investors' seeming attempt to ignore this and apply hindsight deserved to fail, whatever one's views of the legal profession.
My answers
What can possibly have happened to change their minds since last week, when Tory MPs voted against a windfall tax ......?
It's almost as if ....... no, surely not ......
I thought by now most firms would simply confirm dates of employment and nothing more, for fear of litigation if they made any subjective comments. Surely the firm would be obliged to provide this as a minimum and a prospective employer would understand if that was all they could obtain?
That being so, it was unnecessary for the ex-employee to resort to such desperate measures anyway.
Strange case really.
Yeah, that's really not the point .
Ah, the old 'trickle down' chimera.
Nobody still believes that, do they?
But that's exactly the point. I would agree with you, were it not for the fact that she's married to the very person most capable of changing the rules. The Chancellor would be the reformer, but he won't be when he's so heavily conflicted.
The moral duty is the Chancellor's, not his wife's. He should have recognised the conflict of interest.
These archaic, anachronistic and unnecessarily complicating rules ought to be scrapped, but Sunak won't do it.
What we are witnessing though, is the sinking of any hopes Sunak had of becoming Prime Minister. My bet is he'll leave politics soon after he leaves No.11. He was popular doing the easy handing out money stuff, but he's been exposed as hopelessly out of touch and politically inept once the going got tough.
What exactly is "appropriate" about that?
The logic of that appropriateness is that anyone with foreign investments ought to be completing an array of tax returns in whatever jurisdiction their investments reside.
It makes for more sense, and is far simpler, to use personal residence as the basis for all taxation.
"Hammered"? Don't you just mean "taxed"?
Agreed. This seems to be a desperate attempt to recoup 'losses' from a failed avoidance scheme.
It's absolutely right that Counsel's opinion is ultimately just another opinion and over-reliance on it is unwise. I think it was Thornhill himself who said that the only 100% certainty is to pay the tax and 75% probability of success is the most he would ever give, even in the most apparently rock solid of circumstances.
The scheme promoters seem to have been clear enough that Thornhill was their QC, not the investors', who must take independent advice.
The investors' seeming attempt to ignore this and apply hindsight deserved to fail, whatever one's views of the legal profession.
Thornhill told the promoters what they wanted to hear, not the investors. Key distinction.
If that's him, he seems to be a pillar of society - which should immediately raise suspicion!