Google+ Followers

Wednesday, 10 July 2013

Why won't the government tell us? Because they have been robbing us blind.

Proof that the government have been robbing us? 
When something does not make sense, we have a word for that, it's NONSENSE.

The ongoing GST saga over the rents on the Public Markets, is really beginning to get frustrating as there simply is no reason or logic to the position which the government has adopted.

Initially I am sure that they did not believe that I would be able to make a case, but having submitted the relevant cases in precedent and shown that there is a case to be considered, I received a worried e-mail from the Law Officer asking me to expand my argument, this is most unusual.

The Law Officer has said that based on the case in 1904, virtually any activity which involves an exchange of money can be as business, and whilst I have demonstrated that there has been further refinement since then specifically in the area of when government should be treated like a business, he has not budged from his position.
My issue with your arguments is as follows:
1) You have not explained why GST is not charged on such things as income tax,
2) You have not explained the purpose of the GST regulations, i.e. when (or which parts) of government are treated like a business and when is it not a business and what are the criteria for making such a determination?
You’re argument seems to me to comprise, "GST is due because we say so and we make the law up as we go along".  
My counter argument is that the application of GST to public authorities is the same as the application of VAT to UK public authorities, the extant article comprises the same eight words in the same order in the same context and I do not believe that English is a different language to ‘Jersey English’.  
So the VAT notices set out the grounds that the CCE uses to determine when a public authority should charge VAT and when they should not.  
This notice was in force when the draftsman chose to use the exact phrase from the VATA 1994 in the GST Law 2005, presumably because he wished them to have the same meaning. You have provided no argument to the contrary.
Your position does not make sense. Therefore it is not one which, in my experience, the Court will support. 
There are a few other minor considerations but I am trying not to over-complicate the matter at hand.
So the next consideration is why are the government so reticent to set out the basis on which they can or can not charge GST...

The answer is simple, because for the past 8 years they have been robbing us by charging GST on such things as Impots on tobacco, alcohol and petrol - which if I am right they have had no legal right to do.