Home of N2D.

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?



01-10-2012 10:53 pm  #1


lncome v Expenditure court argument.

Border Force prosecution use this a great deal in Condemnation Proceedings and invariably say that the shopper cannot afford the purchase of tobacco goods ... especially if you are on benefits. No detailed maths or calculations are presented ... it's simply presented as you can't afford these purchases.

We've given this a great deal of thought. As you have probably read, we view court as a game but a serious game ... not unlike a chess game in fact. This tactic of using Income v Expenditure seems a problem until you counteract it with a bigger chess piece ... and that chess piece in our game is none other than an accountant.

There are many tax/accountant street shops nowadays and they are not expensive at all. l'm going to see our accountant this week and l shall discuss it with him. What l envisage is that the accountant takes your bank statements etc and factors in your purchases and then issues a letter that states that you can indeed afford these purchases. If the court is presented with something like that, l fail to see how the magistrates/judge cannot accept it.

Border Force prosecution would have a difficult time to say the least using Income v Expenditure as a reason for seizure in those circumstances. Also the accountants letter would cover the trips you made too.

l'll let you know how l get on.   (grin)


http://i45.tinypic.com/24uxqug.png We don't do nice ... we do right!

It's not that l have something to hide ... it's l have nothing l want to show you.
 

01-10-2012 11:03 pm  #2


Re: lncome v Expenditure court argument.

That sounds like a cracking idea! And probably worth whatever it costs -even if we're talking ₤50 or so. Having one done in advance and in the SOT would be a 'killer punch' wouldn't it?


"I, uh, let her out the trunk...heard what, err, She snarled at THEM...."

http://i45.tinypic.com/24uxqug.png
 

01-10-2012 11:26 pm  #3


Re: lncome v Expenditure court argument.

lndeed l believe it would BD. For BF to go against it they would have to demonstrate how they are qualified to do so. lt would also take away shoppers having to quote from memory or made to guess what their incomings and outgoings are etc etc and then depending on BF's suspect arithmetic and calculations.. You would need nothing more than the letter from your accountant. Checkmate, l believe.   (grin)


http://i45.tinypic.com/24uxqug.png We don't do nice ... we do right!

It's not that l have something to hide ... it's l have nothing l want to show you.
     Thread Starter
 

01-10-2012 11:33 pm  #4


Re: lncome v Expenditure court argument.

SH
There's some free accounting packages available on the net also which include budget accounts etc and with a bit of common sense, easy to use and very accurate. They do all the calcs for you. Just enter income and outgoings eg gas & elec etc and it will print off a balance sheet.


http://i45.tinypic.com/24uxqug.png
Please ensure you do not divulge any information which could identify you as Border Force will use your posts here as evidence against you in court.

 
 

02-10-2012 12:06 am  #5


Re: lncome v Expenditure court argument.

eezyrider wrote:

SH
There's some free accounting packages available on the net also which include budget accounts etc and with a bit of common sense, easy to use and very accurate. They do all the calcs for you. Just enter income and outgoings eg gas & elec etc and it will print off a balance sheet.

Eezy, yes l know of them but in the end they are done by oneself (albeit still good) and lack the credibility of a professional accountant. lt needs more thought on the everyday cross-border shopping  but l feel it's a must for any court cases.


http://i45.tinypic.com/24uxqug.png We don't do nice ... we do right!

It's not that l have something to hide ... it's l have nothing l want to show you.
     Thread Starter
 

02-10-2012 8:14 am  #6


Re: lncome v Expenditure court argument.

Smoking Hot wrote:

lndeed l believe it would BD. For BF to go against it they would have to demonstrate how they are qualified to do so. lt would also take away shoppers having to quote from memory or made to guess what their incomings and outgoings are etc etc and then depending on BF's suspect arithmetic and calculations.. You would need nothing more than the letter from your accountant. Checkmate, l believe.   (grin)

The more I think on this the more I like the idea. This could be another 'break through' moment like with the Bobi Foi even. It seems from recent accounts we've heard that the UKBA are basing their whole approach on the "You're on benefits/pension/disabled so you can't afford it".

But I worry that Joe Pubic will baulk at the idea of spending money in advance to protect his shopping and his car. People can be very short sighted. The ₤30 for a recorder and ,say, ₤50 for a financial letter (which could probably be an 'annual' one not for each trip) may well be the best investment they ever make but....


"I, uh, let her out the trunk...heard what, err, She snarled at THEM...."

http://i45.tinypic.com/24uxqug.png
 

02-10-2012 8:50 am  #7


Re: lncome v Expenditure court argument.

Definitely an interesting thought - it really nissed me off, last November at Coquelles, to be asked how I could possibly afford to spend £800 cash in Adinkerke.

Obvious answer would be " how can I afford not to"  (happy)

When we go next month I was planning to take bank statements, in my folder, just in case we get stopped and asked stupid questions.


Please ensure you do not divulge any information which could identify you as Border Force may use your posts here as evidence against you in court.
 

02-10-2012 2:18 pm  #8


Re: lncome v Expenditure court argument.

John, Me to, Last three Payslips, bank statements and Credit card statements, both the wife and I.

My SOT folder is getting larger by the day, I think im heading for Brain fade just cant stop learning from the boys.

Thanks so much Small donation on its way Mick.

Garry

Last edited by N2Dgarry (02-10-2012 6:55 pm)


START HERE, By answering these questions. http://n2d.boardhost.com/viewtopic.php?id=1526
Useful documents for download : http://n2d.boardhost.com/viewforum.php?id=34
Goods been seized, Start here.  http://n2d.boardhost.com/viewtopic.php?id=78
SOT Thanks to TBD. http://n2d.boardhost.com/viewtopic.php?id=373
 

19-1-2013 1:49 pm  #9


Re: lncome v Expenditure court argument.

I've recently argued my case re. income Vs expenditure to both a UKBA officer and an HMRC senior officer. In both cases they accepted that my effective disposable income (not cash-in-hand which is a horse of a different kettle of feathers) is equivalent to an earned income of over £19K per annum! You just have to take everything into account as income including such things as housing & council tax benefits, free road tax, electricity suppliers credit, pension credit guaranteed credit, winter fuel allowance and not forgetting such things as the costs you don't have to pay - income tax, national insurance and even travelling and other associated costs involved in actually working for a living. According to the guv'mints Office of National Statistics one has to spend, on average, £1 in each £8 earned (Gross) on this last item alone.

That's how 'double entry bookkeeping' works and is the standard way of calculating the 'financially correct' figures. No; I've no idea how the system works either, but I doknow how to work the system http://images.boardhost.com/emoticons/devious.png

Last edited by Sir Henry (19-1-2013 1:54 pm)


They lie on recordings; they lie on oath; their shysters lie on their behalf. Don't believe a word coming from the mouths (2 per person) of any UKBA officer.
 

19-1-2013 2:19 pm  #10


Re: lncome v Expenditure court argument.

I have a garden of one third acre and rarely have to buy vegatables from a supermarket. That would have to be taken into consideration!!! But on a more serious note, the accountant is a good idea. However, I'm going to stick with 'I have a credit card with a limit of £1400 and these companies pay a lot of money for actuaries to asses the risk to them of allowing me such credit. I therefore have enough disposable income to both afford the purchase and to service the purchase'.

 

19-1-2013 4:48 pm  #11


Re: lncome v Expenditure court argument.

I don't know that credit card limits really mean much if one has had card for ages.

One of my cards has £10,400 limit thats been there for nearly 15 years. Current expenditure to pay off in full this month £9.03.


Please ensure you do not divulge any information which could identify you as Border Force may use your posts here as evidence against you in court.
 

19-1-2013 5:50 pm  #12


Re: lncome v Expenditure court argument.

But it shows that you are credit worthy and able to service it. I think the credit companies are better placed to judge than some arithmetical monkey at UKBF. Mine is only 13 months old!!! My income is none of their business anyway. And when I had my goods seized they never asked a single question about my expenditure. I am a very frugal person.

Last edited by celticmanx (19-1-2013 6:41 pm)

 

19-1-2013 10:18 pm  #13


Re: lncome v Expenditure court argument.

Sir Henry wrote:

You just have to take everything into account as income including such things as housing & council tax benefits, free road tax, electricity suppliers credit, pension credit guaranteed credit, winter fuel allowance and not forgetting such things as the costs you don't have to pay - income tax, national insurance and even travelling and other associated costs involved in actually working for a living.

Also, include the savings from shopping intra-EU-27!

 

07-7-2014 3:07 pm  #14


Re: lncome v Expenditure court argument.

WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU PERSIST THAT YOUR FINANCIAL SITUATION IS YOUR OWN BUISNESS ,IN COURT 

 

07-7-2014 3:43 pm  #15


Re: lncome v Expenditure court argument.

I think it would`t look good from judge point of view as it will look like you are trying to hide something. if one of the reasons was that you could`t afford to buy X amount of goods it will be in your interest to disclose you disposible income to show that you can afford them. they try everything in court, I was asked by HO barrister if I was claiming Housing Benefit (she only know this as it was listed in my bundle as part of my income) and she was thinking that I may be affraid to say so,when I said `yes` she did`t go this route anymore.
 


Please ensure you do not divulge any information which could identify you as Border Force will use your posts here as evidence against you in court.
 

07-7-2014 4:26 pm  #16


Re: lncome v Expenditure court argument.

southchurcher wrote:

WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU PERSIST THAT YOUR FINANCIAL SITUATION IS YOUR OWN BUISNESS ,IN COURT 

You might get away with this providing you can show how you actually paid for the goods. Strictly speaking your income is, or should be, irrelevant. You could have an income of zero, but if you can persuade somebody to lend you the money you have a perfect right to spend that money on whatever you choose.

"Income not consistent with expenditure" is really a spurious reason for seizure UNLESS you are trying to pass off a lot of goods as gifts to other people. After all, smoking, like gambling, drinking, drug taking etc.  is classed as a potential ADDICTION. No self-respecting addict lets shortage of money stand in the way of his fix. If this were not so, there would be a drastic decline in the population of prisons, homeless hostels etc.

However, targeting people perceived to have a low income serves a useful purpose for Border Force. Such people are more likely to be afraid of costs and unable to afford a solicitor so they may not appeal if their goods are seized.  Also, it is a good way of tying people in knots as they perform desperate financial gymnastics attempting  to calculate their monthly household disposable income.

In my opinion your disposable income IS your own business. Unfortunately, however, the court may not agree.

 

07-7-2014 4:35 pm  #17


Re: lncome v Expenditure court argument.

I agree with Turbulent. This is why I use my credit card statement with my credit limit and a negative balance on it. As far as I am concerned, very expensively paid actuaries assess my financial predicament and decide whether to offer me this credit facility. I would present in court that  a qualified actuary is in a better position to judge my financial affairs compared with a lying Border Force ocifer. Effectively it is an expert witness statement without actually asking an expert witness to appear. I don't know if anyone has used this in court yet. And again, only until we test it in court can we really say if that would work.

However I would certainly make a big deal of this reason for seizure. What sort of facilities (ie pen paper calculator) were offered to make a calculation. I have also noted that on most occasions, they are only concerned with INCOME. It is my belief that this reason for seizure could be thrown out by demonstrating that if no acount was made of EXPENDITURE, then the REASON  cannot be valid. If they don't know your monthly outgoings then the cannot use one v another as a reason.

 

07-7-2014 8:56 pm  #18


Re: lncome v Expenditure court argument.

My vote is with Piotrek.

If you are stopped and during the interview asked what your income is then fine, tell them it's none of their business.

Different if you are in court accused of not having sufficient funds for your purchases. You can either shrug your shoulders and sit there with your finger in your ear or present a financial statement/accountants cert of disposable income which proves you can afford the goods.

The choice would be yours.


http://i45.tinypic.com/24uxqug.png
Please ensure you do not divulge any information which could identify you as Border Force will use your posts here as evidence against you in court.

 
 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum

Disclaimer:- This forum is an open forum, and anyone can post their thoughts here (within reason). Therefore the views expressed here are those of individuals and not necessarily those of Nothing 2 Declare. We try to allow as much freedom of speech as possible, including views that some may find objectionable. This includes the views of UKBA, Border Force, HMRC, legitimate cross-border shoppers, non-legitimate importers, general public and anyone else that wishes to post.
Regarding ourselves, we categorically do not condone smuggling and neither do we condone the current tactics used against legitimate cross-border shoppers by UKBA/Border Force and HMRC. The current tactics benefit both Customs and smugglers alike.
Although some people use real names, there is no guarantee that they are who they say they are; it is impossible for us to verify identities of all members.