On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 17:25:03 +0000, "Stuart A. Bronstein"
wrote:

"tim....." wrote:
"Stuart A. Bronstein" wrote
Alex Heney wrote:

They certainly tend to do so, but they never regard them as
binding.

Perhaps if someone were to publicly publish the opinions they
would be shamed into more consistency.

Many of the commissioners findings are 'finding of fact'

Yes, I am aware that findings of fact are generally not appealable. I
was concerned about legal rather than factual issues. Consistency is
important, even amongst administrative tribunals.

The legal issues here, whether, as a payment for services, the
money is taxable or not are usually entirely clear and undisputed.

If the commissioners have no legal obligation to be consistent with
respect to their legal rulings, that's not necessarily the case.

I agree with you that's how it should work. I was inquiring whether it
works that way in practice.

They aren't really an administrative tribunal. The General
Commisioners are selected from the lay magistracy; they use the same
courtrooms and clerks as the Magistrates Courts. Like those courts,
while they have an obligation to follow the law as they understand it,
their decisions have no application beyond the case before them.
Matters of any complexity don't go to the General Commissioners but to
the Special Commissioners, who are specialists. Appeals from both go
to a High Court judge.

--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"