|
Arnhem District Court
21 December 2008
Cc: Tax and Customs Administration, Doetinchem office Appeal in case number 07 / 2920 VPB 77Subject: accounting information on income derived from interest for 2007 and reflection on judge’s comment during the court session of 13 March 2008.
Dear Arnhem court, In the enclosure please find information on the virtual and actual interest received during the 2007 financial year. The actual interest received comprises interest on bank accounts, business deposit account and current account of Agathos B.V. and totals € XX.XXX ; the virtual interest income totals €XX.XXX. It goes without saying that the plaintiff is willing to pay taxes on the actual interest received. The plaintiff would like to take this opportunity to return to a comment the judge made during the court session of 13 March 2008. The plaintiff has been unable to find this comment in the report, but took it as a piece of well-meant advice. The judge suggested that the plaintiff write an opinion piece to interest the public in the subject the plaintiff tried to address with this case. The plaintiff agrees with this suggestion in part, but was also quite considerably taken aback by it. Was the judge trying to tell me that something is or becomes real only if approved by a democratic majority? Or was the judge trying to indicate that the plaintiff addressed the assumption that money is worth money in the wrong arena (that is, in a court of law)? If these interpretations have a grain of truth in them, what are the chances that the plaintiff will be given a fair and open trial at all? By assuming that money is worth money, the government has already unintentionally named the winner in advance: the financial world*. Are fair competition and equal opportunities for everyone even possible if the winner has been designated in advance? By naming the winner in advance, the government has lost the independence and objectivity it needs to speak on behalf of the population as a whole (public interest). How can a legal system that is unintentionally based on the same assumption pronounce judgement level-headedly and justly on behalf of everyone in the constitutional state? Money, profit, interest and dozens of other financial derivatives are unable to sort out social priorities. If society then subordinates itself to the laws of this financial world, it is no more than logical that alienation, confusion and financial anarchy will result. How can taking out more than you’ve put in** ever put the common basis, as described in the fundamental rights of the Netherlands Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights, into practice? To take the content of this appeal a step further, the plaintiff would like to know what scientific arguments the respondent applies when assuming that money is worth money in the form of interest and thus justly claims taxes to be paid on them? I hope that both the respondent and the court understand the necessity and urgency of this appeal and that it is crucial not to counteract one another (which is ‘merely’ a form of mutual competition) but to co-operate to restore or create the required collective basis and thus give practical content to the European convention on human challenges, whatever our position in society. Yours faithfully,
De Hutte Holding B.V.
*All those who believe that money is worth money. ** Perhaps a somewhat coarse yet clear translation of the concept of profit, the war of all against all (the latter phrase being coined by Thomas Hobbes)
Enclosure I: Information on income derived from interest, De Hutte Holding BV, for the year 2007 DVD The lemon tree
|
| Backt to index page |