ACCforum: hollis v ird in high court - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 7 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

hollis v ird in high court tax law

#1 User is offline   flowers 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 25-March 04

Posted 05 October 2008 - 08:13 PM

high court Hollis vs ird civ 2004 485 883

Attached File  Hollis__vs_comm._IRD.pdf (29.63K)
Number of downloads: 55
0

#2 User is offline   Spacecadet 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 24-January 07

Posted 06 October 2008 - 06:21 PM

My thanks the Ms Hollis for her diligence and perseverance in taking this matter to the Courts, and can only wish her the best of luck with her NOPA hearing before the IRD.
I note that the Judge encourages her to continue her claim with a favourable NOPA, which should see a successful conclusion for her case and a victory for all ACC claimants who receive backdated ERC.

It is high time the forum supported the real battlers for ACC claimants instead of backing losers!
0

#3 User is offline   Tomcat 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2158
  • Joined: 14-September 03

Posted 06 October 2008 - 06:53 PM

 Spacecadet, on Oct 6 2008, 07:21 PM, said:

My thanks the Ms Hollis for her diligence and perseverance in taking this matter to the Courts, and can only wish her the best of luck with her NOPA hearing before the IRD.
I note that the Judge encourages her to continue her claim with a favourable NOPA, which should see a successful conclusion for her case and a victory for all ACC claimants who receive backdated ERC.

It is high time the forum supported the real battlers for ACC claimants instead of backing losers!


Right on...

Show a little appreciation people
for the hard yards, that some do,
that many will benefit from...
maybe not right a way,
but eventually.
0

#4 Guest_Snowman_*

  • Group: Guests

  Posted 06 October 2008 - 07:18 PM

 Spacecadet, on Oct 6 2008, 07:21 PM, said:

My thanks the Ms Hollis for her diligence and perseverance in taking this matter to the Courts, and can only wish her the best of luck with her NOPA hearing before the IRD.
I note that the Judge encourages her to continue her claim with a favourable NOPA, which should see a successful conclusion for her case and a victory for all ACC claimants who receive backdated ERC.

It is high time the forum supported the real battlers for ACC claimants instead of backing losers!


I total agree, Spacecadet and Tomcat, as she has alot to do and very little time to get it done. If she wins then all claimants will benefit from here on.
0

#5 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 08 October 2008 - 08:37 AM

Blurb

Did I see you go online this morning and threaten suicide.

And you say there are no 'losers' on here.

I or no one else on the site whats you to harm yourself, but neither do I want threatening messages on my PM.

If you think so little of yourself, just try and imagine what it is like to be named, hated and cursed at, by someone who thinks so little of themselves that the would do themself in.

ACC sucks I have asked you on another thread to please not incite Blurb to break the law. Im sure he would hate jail more than he hates ACC.

And thank you one and all for your kind support. You know who you are and will eventually reap your rewards from my success if any.

See I am not so sure as some people, that I will succeed although I think I am right. This is why low profile was the aim for five years. Dont get peoples hopes up when dealing with the very best minds in public service. We are not better than them, and they have more resourses. I forget how many people the lawyer I am up against has, think it is two others and a secretary to boot.

Must go, much to do.

But Blurb if you are still with us:

I had to be here to try and defend my name. With that came lose of concentration and focus, which I have now got back thanks to a lot of deep thinking.

However, how would you know that I was on the computer a lot, unless you were doing the exact same thing!!??

IS THIS THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK??

ok outta here
Mini
0

#6 User is offline   David Butler 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3370
  • Joined: 25-January 10

Posted 27 February 2013 - 05:16 PM

 MINI, on 27 February 2013 - 01:49 PM, said:

Try this is exactly where the connection between my name and my moniker came from. It was released onto the accforum many years ago, like 2006 or so, by one monikered flowers, who has since been named by David Butler on LF tapes as Brian Luke.

That was taken down off here as it was against any of ACCforum's code of members responsibilties or rules.

The Mini v IRD did not see the light of day again until it was posted in the LF site.

Three cases taken by me against IRD to try to get our overtaxed monies back are actually no longer available to the pulic I am told. so LF had to have someone who already had the 2005/06 case (first) in there hands or from this forum maybe.

So for many years my life was pretty uneventful, until David Butler got it in his mind that I knew about the TPB. Once Thomo got free of his shackles and was allowed on the forum again, it seems that laudafinem was set up to take a few forum members to task and anyone would do, whether they were involved in any manner at all did not matter to Allan Thomas (looking for extra material to use for retrail), Dave Butler who was kissing bums so much the bums must have got shavers rash, of Nottingham, kowtow and Thomas kowtow. Sorry sorry gave this information from my first case to LF.
Who delighted in taking the lies presented and the garbage along with it as gosple without checking its authenticity. The case wa actually a win for me, but lies of tax cheat, tax fraudster was unnecessary and was not a part of the case, so it is made up just as the other garbage is.

I do not consider making these cases anonymous would be helpful at all as it would create further work the court and end up with us to pay for their time in blanking out any identifying information.

It is easier that we are able to take task via the courts those who misuse the information provided wrongly, and malicously against the person named on the cover of the Judges decision.

Mini


Sorry Claire
you in here as a public figure quite famous at that
you slag yu easy to identify
moan you nates off.


Flowers-your telling the story there
Spacecadet-now how could we all forget Douglas Weal as Spacecadet
You know Douglas-hes spread your name far and wide Mini
Tomcat-that be the well known publicly person as Kenneth Miller
You know Ken as well
And then MINI as the person within the document
showing you are that person-thanking one and all for the support
Oh I forgot the snowman-another acquaintance of yours i understand Claire.
Your writings quite interesting MINI.
2008-2013 STILL MIXED UP OUT OF CONTEXT -ME ME ME.Posted Image

pp
Blurbs still here hes ok well healthy WEALTHY all cool.
0

#7 User is offline   Rosey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1808
  • Joined: 25-December 09
  • LocationHamilton

Posted 27 February 2013 - 06:22 PM

 Tomcat, on 06 October 2008 - 06:53 PM, said:

Right on...

Show a little appreciation people
for the hard yards, that some do,
that many will benefit from...
maybe not right a way,
but eventually.


Know someone who got $100 interest for the year she had been unlawfully kicked off WC. She was happy because back in the 90s she got none. Great stuff for the person who did this precedent for us all.



1

#8 User is offline   David Butler 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3370
  • Joined: 25-January 10

Posted 27 February 2013 - 06:25 PM

agree with you Rosie
good work for the interested done by ones
never had a problem there
dave
0

#9 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 27 February 2013 - 06:47 PM

 flowers, on 05 October 2008 - 08:13 PM, said:

high court Hollis vs ird civ 2004 485 883

Hollis__...omm._IRD.pdf


Take another look David Butler, you will please notethat at the High Court mini took IRD to court....this is one case out of three, against the IRD.

If I was a tax cheat or a Tax fraudster has you had LF believe, it would be IRD v Hollis.

It is interesting that you have the case to hand so readily. mine is down the bottom of a real deep amount of paperwork as this was the first of five year of much effort against the IRD, which only ended because I had the Kearney case become available in 2010 which allowed me to apply for interest under a new regime.

You seem to have a really bad case of absolute fixation with the fact that you can prove that everything I say is correct.

It must be mentioned here that the name and lies and ugly comments that went with it never went over to google until this year.

It was this year that David Butler pulled the name from LF onto the ACCforum and repeated it so often that it ended up on google along with the rubbish ugly remarks and lies of Tax Fraudster that accompanied it as this is what David Butler told lauda finem.

Now unlike most the others named by lauda finem I had abosutely nothing to do with Nottingham or his ACC advocate site. Absolutely nothing. I had never seen the guy before I saw him on the posts of the tapes of David Butler speaking to Nottingham and naming names, including xxxxxxxs/ admin.

I have no reason to lie, I am not a criminal or a crook. I help those I can in any manner I can to steer them in the right direction to get their entitlements.

I have done more for this forum than in the time I have available than those that have gone out spy diving and catching nothing but having to apologise in the future.

Read the case, see where you can see me being called a tax cheat or frauster.

You too read it again mr david Butler and show me where you consider I am a tax cheat or a tax frauster and when you find nothing, I expect you will apoligise to me for causing this lying rubbish to end up on google.

I will be waiting in anticipation.

Mini
0

#10 User is offline   David Butler 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3370
  • Joined: 25-January 10

Posted 27 February 2013 - 07:34 PM

Never said you were a tax cheetah mini
you have that on record somewhere
i have responded to your claims re that where you allege i told lauda
but YOU said to all out here you were named as a tax cheeetah

off the ball park again mini
youll need to be real specific with my barristers Claire
real specific with some evidence.
no fixation -search engine takes a minute and there you are.
0

#11 User is offline   REX 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2653
  • Joined: 16-July 09

Posted 27 February 2013 - 07:41 PM

It seems like someone has a really guilty conscience. ;)
0

#12 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 27 February 2013 - 07:54 PM

 David Butler, on 27 February 2013 - 07:34 PM, said:

Never said you were a tax cheetah mini
you have that on record somewhere
i have responded to your claims re that where you allege i told lauda
but YOU said to all out here you were named as a tax cheeetah

off the ball park again mini
youll need to be real specific with my barristers Claire
real specific with some evidence.
no fixation -search engine takes a minute and there you are.


You will be ready to serve me with papers in the very near future I gather. I have a 'use by' date.

Show me where I said I was named as a tax cheat/frauster. (Not the full stop.) I think you are ready you girlfriend cats altered posts of mine, where I call myself a tax cheat.

In court you will expected to put the whole sentence if not paragraph in. I have even had the opposition lawyer order the second page of a e-mail when it was a blank page. That is how prissie I too can be. So when you quote me up here make sure you show the whole post and the necessary statements that lead up to it.

I think you will find that I have said I have wrongly been called a tax cheat/fraudster.

Still doesnt take away from the fact that you maliciously and vexaciously pulled that case and my name from somewhere that it was causing little aggravation and used the name over and over again until it finally hit google.

A lot of us know it was not there last year, as I kept track during the year as I knew it was in LF. The Police have it listed as me complaining about it in January 2012 being in Lv.

You obviously have never taken yourself to court yourself eh???

It is better to go with too much information than not enough. Ask thomo he should be able to tell you. He seems to think you have such good stuff there, but his background leads me to beleive that he is not too good at obtaining a outcome from the court that woud allow him to carry on with his main substantive issues.

Pity that!!!

Mini
0

#13 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 27 February 2013 - 07:57 PM

 REX, on 27 February 2013 - 07:41 PM, said:

It seems like someone has a really guilty conscience. ;)



You did not believe I was innocent of being a tax cheat/frauster Rex, have you changed your mind now after reading the case. Or are you just to thick to understand what it is about.

Mini
0

#14 User is offline   REX 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2653
  • Joined: 16-July 09

Posted 27 February 2013 - 08:05 PM

 MINI, on 27 February 2013 - 07:57 PM, said:

You did not believe I was innocent of being a tax cheat/frauster Rex, have you changed your mind now after reading the case. Or are you just to thick to understand what it is about.

Mini


Mini I have never bothered myself to read any of your cases and never will... I sit back and laugh my tits off at you attacking, abusing, attempting to intimidate, Manipulate the facts, change every topic you see and I just feel SORRY for you.

My opinion has not altered at all as to you being a TAX CHEAT. B)
0

#15 User is offline   David Butler 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3370
  • Joined: 25-January 10

Posted 27 February 2013 - 08:24 PM

 MINI, on 27 February 2013 - 07:54 PM, said:

You will be ready to serve me with papers in the very near future I gather. I have a 'use by' date.

Show me where I said I was named as a tax cheat/frauster. (Not the full stop.) I think you are ready you girlfriend cats altered posts of mine, where I call myself a tax cheat.

In court you will expected to put the whole sentence if not paragraph in. I have even had the opposition lawyer order the second page of a e-mail when it was a blank page. That is how prissie I too can be. So when you quote me up here make sure you show the whole post and the necessary statements that lead up to it.

I think you will find that I have said I have wrongly been called a tax cheat/fraudster.

Still doesnt take away from the fact that you maliciously and vexaciously pulled that case and my name from somewhere that it was causing little aggravation and used the name over and over again until it finally hit google.

A lot of us know it was not there last year, as I kept track during the year as I knew it was in LF. The Police have it listed as me complaining about it in January 2012 being in Lv.

You obviously have never taken yourself to court yourself eh???

It is better to go with too much information than not enough. Ask thomo he should be able to tell you. He seems to think you have such good stuff there, but his background leads me to beleive that he is not too good at obtaining a outcome from the court that woud allow him to carry on with his main substantive issues.

Pity that!!!

Mini


You said Mini
That i found / said you were a fraudster and passed that info to laudafinem
thats what you have to prove
AND YOU CAN NOT DO THAT.

So bugger off. as far as your name and me if you slag me defame libel then you will be a name-you continue to this day with abuse
0

#16 User is offline   netcoachnz 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3454
  • Joined: 26-January 11

Posted 27 February 2013 - 08:55 PM


Commissioner's decision reviewed

Decision date: 06 October 2005

Case: Claire Avon Rae Hollis v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue

Act(s): Tax Administration Act 1994

Keywords: Judicial Review, late Notice of Proposed Adjustment, exceptional circumstances


Summary
No ground of judicial review existed in relation to the Commissioner's decision to not accept the plaintiff's NOPA which was filed outside the statutory response period.


Facts
This was a Judicial Review of the decision of the Commissioner to refuse to accept the late filing of a Notice of Proposed Adjustment ("NOPA") under section 89K of the Tax Administration Act 1994 ("the TAA").

Prior to 2004 the plaintiff had been in dispute with the Accident Compensation Corporation ("ACC") over entitlement to compensation. During the 2004 income tax year the dispute was resolved and the plaintiff was granted employment-related compensation from ACC.

While the payment was made in two lump sums they effectively related to an earlier period of years. After discussions between the plaintiff and the Commissioner, the Commissioner agreed to allow the ACC payments to be allocated back into the years in which they effectively related, rather than in the year they were received.

Following this decision the plaintiff's Tax advisors, Coffey Davidson Limited, filed income tax returns reflecting this agreement for the income tax years ended 31 March 2000 through 2004 inclusive.

Following the filing of these income tax returns the Commissioner issued notices of assessment with respect to the income tax years ended 31 March 2000, 2001 and 2002 and income statements for the 2003 and 2004 income tax years.

These notices of assessment and income statements were issued by the Commissioner to the plaintiff's tax agents. The plaintiff's tax agents however, failed to pass these on to the plaintiff until around two months after they were originally issued by the Commissioner.

Having finally received the relevant information from her tax agents, the plaintiff prepared a NOPA for the 2000 through 2004 income tax years inclusive, which was then issued to the Commissioner along with a covering note requesting that the NOPA be accepted despite being issued outside the statutory response period required by the TAA.

For all save the 2004 income tax year, the NOPA was issued outside the two month statutory response period. Because of the operation of Part III of the TAA no assessment for the 2004 year has yet been made and as such the plaintiff will have two months to challenge that assessment by NOPA once such an assessment is made.

For the 2000 through 2003 income tax years a number of grounds were raised by the plaintiff in support for having her late NOPA accepted. These included:

  • The fact that the plaintiff was awaiting a Court of Appeal decision and other reviews and appeals relating to her entitlement to a benefit and ACC, which might affect her tax position and assist her.
  • Her tax agents, her accountants, did not pass on the relevant notice of assessment and income statements until the two month response period had expired or practically expired.
  • There was a dispute between herself and the Commissioner as to the correctness of the income tax returns.
  • The Commissioner should allow the underlying merits of the plaintiff's case to be heard and resolved.
  • Judge Barber (of the Taxation Review Authority) had previously made comments about the need for a liberal approach to be given to the interpretation of exceptional circumstances.
The Commissioner, through a duly delegated officer, concluded that none of these reasons constituted exceptional circumstances.


Decision
His Honour found for the Commissioner after working through the following submissions made by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's first submission revolved around the difficulty of potentially different decisions on her tax liability for the 2004 income tax year, compared to her 2000 through 2003 income tax years. This arose as all parties agreed the plaintiff still had the right to NOPA the 2004 income tax year after the Commissioner makes a formal assessment for that year.

The plaintiff made the point that if she is successful in disputing her 2004 income tax assessment there will be conflicting tax liabilities for the 2000 through 2003 income tax years as all the years relate to exactly the same issues. Basically, the plaintiff submitted this was an exceptional circumstance.

His Honour noted that the plaintiff had never put this point to the Commissioner in support of her argument for exceptional circumstances. In any event His Honour noted that as counsel for the Commissioner had pointed out, if the plaintiff was successful in her dispute over her 2004 income tax year she would be able to apply to the Commissioner under section 113 of the TAA to have her earlier income tax years amended accordingly. Therefore, this was not a ground of review for the plaintiff.

His Honour then dealt with a number of submissions made by the plaintiff relating to the circumstances by which she was late in filing her NOPA.

His Honour concluded it was clear that the plaintiff did not formally know about the notices of assessment and income statements until her accountants had finally passed them on to her.

His Honour noted that once the plaintiff had received the notices, she called Inland Revenue and spoke to an employee who told her, that despite being out of time or almost out of time, there may have been grounds to justify exceptional circumstances.

His Honour again noted that the plaintiff had never put this point to the Commissioner in support of her argument for exceptional circumstances. Furthermore, the plaintiff did not claim to have been misled by this information nor did she claim that it had delayed her in issuing her NOPA.

His Honour concluded that although it is unwise for Inland Revenue employees to give such advice, on the facts of this case it did not provide a ground of review.

His Honour also concluded that although the plaintiff had not raised any substantive grounds of review she did nevertheless have an effective remedy in this case. That was to proceed through with the dispute in relation to the 2004 income tax year and if she was successful with this, she could apply to the Commissioner under section 113 of the TAA to have her 2000 through 2003 income tax years amended accordingly.




Source {http://www.ird.govt....-reviewed.html}



0

#17 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 28 February 2013 - 09:01 AM

 netcoachnz, on 27 February 2013 - 08:55 PM, said:

Commissioner's decision reviewed

Decision date: 06 October 2005

Case: Claire Avon Rae Hollis v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue

Act(s): Tax Administration Act 1994

Keywords: Judicial Review, late Notice of Proposed Adjustment, exceptional circumstances


Summary
No ground of judicial review existed in relation to the Commissioner's decision to not accept the plaintiff's NOPA which was filed outside the statutory response period.


Facts
This was a Judicial Review of the decision of the Commissioner to refuse to accept the late filing of a Notice of Proposed Adjustment ("NOPA") under section 89K of the Tax Administration Act 1994 ("the TAA").

Prior to 2004 the plaintiff had been in dispute with the Accident Compensation Corporation ("ACC") over entitlement to compensation. During the 2004 income tax year the dispute was resolved and the plaintiff was granted employment-related compensation from ACC.

While the payment was made in two lump sums they effectively related to an earlier period of years. After discussions between the plaintiff and the Commissioner, the Commissioner agreed to allow the ACC payments to be allocated back into the years in which they effectively related, rather than in the year they were received.

Following this decision the plaintiff's Tax advisors, Coffey Davidson Limited, filed income tax returns reflecting this agreement for the income tax years ended 31 March 2000 through 2004 inclusive.

Following the filing of these income tax returns the Commissioner issued notices of assessment with respect to the income tax years ended 31 March 2000, 2001 and 2002 and income statements for the 2003 and 2004 income tax years.

These notices of assessment and income statements were issued by the Commissioner to the plaintiff's tax agents. The plaintiff's tax agents however, failed to pass these on to the plaintiff until around two months after they were originally issued by the Commissioner.

Having finally received the relevant information from her tax agents, the plaintiff prepared a NOPA for the 2000 through 2004 income tax years inclusive, which was then issued to the Commissioner along with a covering note requesting that the NOPA be accepted despite being issued outside the statutory response period required by the TAA.

For all save the 2004 income tax year, the NOPA was issued outside the two month statutory response period. Because of the operation of Part III of the TAA no assessment for the 2004 year has yet been made and as such the plaintiff will have two months to challenge that assessment by NOPA once such an assessment is made.

For the 2000 through 2003 income tax years a number of grounds were raised by the plaintiff in support for having her late NOPA accepted. These included:

  • The fact that the plaintiff was awaiting a Court of Appeal decision and other reviews and appeals relating to her entitlement to a benefit and ACC, which might affect her tax position and assist her.
  • Her tax agents, her accountants, did not pass on the relevant notice of assessment and income statements until the two month response period had expired or practically expired.
  • There was a dispute between herself and the Commissioner as to the correctness of the income tax returns.
  • The Commissioner should allow the underlying merits of the plaintiff's case to be heard and resolved.
  • Judge Barber (of the Taxation Review Authority) had previously made comments about the need for a liberal approach to be given to the interpretation of exceptional circumstances.
The Commissioner, through a duly delegated officer, concluded that none of these reasons constituted exceptional circumstances.


Decision
His Honour found for the Commissioner after working through the following submissions made by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's first submission revolved around the difficulty of potentially different decisions on her tax liability for the 2004 income tax year, compared to her 2000 through 2003 income tax years. This arose as all parties agreed the plaintiff still had the right to NOPA the 2004 income tax year after the Commissioner makes a formal assessment for that year.

The plaintiff made the point that if she is successful in disputing her 2004 income tax assessment there will be conflicting tax liabilities for the 2000 through 2003 income tax years as all the years relate to exactly the same issues. Basically, the plaintiff submitted this was an exceptional circumstance.

His Honour noted that the plaintiff had never put this point to the Commissioner in support of her argument for exceptional circumstances. In any event His Honour noted that as counsel for the Commissioner had pointed out, if the plaintiff was successful in her dispute over her 2004 income tax year she would be able to apply to the Commissioner under section 113 of the TAA to have her earlier income tax years amended accordingly. Therefore, this was not a ground of review for the plaintiff.

His Honour then dealt with a number of submissions made by the plaintiff relating to the circumstances by which she was late in filing her NOPA.

His Honour concluded it was clear that the plaintiff did not formally know about the notices of assessment and income statements until her accountants had finally passed them on to her.

His Honour noted that once the plaintiff had received the notices, she called Inland Revenue and spoke to an employee who told her, that despite being out of time or almost out of time, there may have been grounds to justify exceptional circumstances.

His Honour again noted that the plaintiff had never put this point to the Commissioner in support of her argument for exceptional circumstances. Furthermore, the plaintiff did not claim to have been misled by this information nor did she claim that it had delayed her in issuing her NOPA.

His Honour concluded that although it is unwise for Inland Revenue employees to give such advice, on the facts of this case it did not provide a ground of review.

His Honour also concluded that although the plaintiff had not raised any substantive grounds of review she did nevertheless have an effective remedy in this case. That was to proceed through with the dispute in relation to the 2004 income tax year and if she was successful with this, she could apply to the Commissioner under section 113 of the TAA to have her 2000 through 2003 income tax years amended accordingly.




Source {http://www.ird.govt....-reviewed.html}



The review was actually in my favour as if I hadnt taken it to court I would not even had the 2004 year in which to take the case further.

The IRD decided to concede the 2004 year just before we were to go to High Court.

I didnt trust them to stick to the offer of having that year remain open, and wanted the court decision on it.

What you read is the outcome. So obviously a Justice of the supreme court thinks I had a good chance of making a difference. He gave me an assurance that the other years would be opened as he figured the Commissioner would want to see justice done.

The leason of this case to all out there, is that it is much better to get the stamp of approval from the court than to beleive a govt dept. For months and months IRD's lawyers had tried to make like the 2004 year was not open to me to pursue a NOPA.

Mini
0

#18 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 28 February 2013 - 09:13 AM

 REX, on 27 February 2013 - 08:05 PM, said:

Mini I have never bothered myself to read any of your cases and never will... I sit back and laugh my tits off at you attacking, abusing, attempting to intimidate, Manipulate the facts, change every topic you see and I just feel SORRY for you.

My opinion has not altered at all as to you being a TAX CHEAT. B)



I will obviously never change your small ferrett mind so there is no point in me discussing anything with you at a later date.

If all on here thought like you I would never put myself out for any of them.

So you are all bullshit and rubbarb and your writings are not worth reading either.

Good bye
0

#19 User is offline   David Butler 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3370
  • Joined: 25-January 10

Posted 28 February 2013 - 10:38 AM

 MINI, on 28 February 2013 - 09:01 AM, said:

The review was actually in my favour as if I hadnt taken it to court I would not even had the 2004 year in which to take the case further.

The IRD decided to concede the 2004 year just before we were to go to High Court.

I didnt trust them to stick to the offer of having that year remain open, and wanted the court decision on it.

What you read is the outcome. So obviously a Justice of the supreme court thinks I had a good chance of making a difference. He gave me an assurance that the other years would be opened as he figured the Commissioner would want to see justice done.

The leason of this case to all out there, is that it is much better to get the stamp of approval from the court than to beleive a govt dept. For months and months IRD's lawyers had tried to make like the 2004 year was not open to me to pursue a NOPA.

Mini


This thread was bumped out to show Claire that the accusations she makes that others have named her are unfounded
the info been here-never as she claims taken down as a rule breach etc
It is not about the decision content for me
of note is the 2008 writings of Claire and the writings in 2013
nothing changed
The problem area is Claire herself.
The lauda content came from lauda to here not by me Claire
as i see it there is another court of some sort that has records available tar tra or something
obviously laudman had done his research and found that
with the shenanigans going on by you if any one in here. with the amount of ones youve had a go at , knew of that tra news ,im real sure it would have been well popped out in here long ago ,obviously you annoyed laudaman enough to ensure the tra was foundPosted Image
Your Jan 2012 police notice to a complaint about LF
Your problem or the police if thats your desire to pursue
nothing malicious or vexatious about nothing Calire
its been here and always will be and in lauda i assume but you chatting with them so guess youll sort them out soon enough yourself.
personally id advise you to keep wellhttp://accforum.org/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/cool.gif away from laudaman affairs
you way out of your depth along with the ipod man.
3

#20 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10601
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 06 March 2013 - 02:58 PM

mini why have you persistently blamed me for what others have done to you.
I have no knowledge nor interest in regards to your tax liabilities.

Why do you constantly associate me with David Butler who you called Doc as if he is my pet dog under my control. I'm quite sure that Mr David Butler will be the first to tell everybody that he is not under my control. I would entirely agree with him if he was to provide you with that reassurance.
0

Share this topic:


  • 7 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users