No To Retro Tax - Ongoing battle against S58 FA2008

[DonkeyRhubarb]

100 Yes votes

[lucozade]

Perhaps if CCW could alleviate concerns people have regarding the TAA and the effect it could have on people's current situations then the votes would be closer to 100%?

Personally I have no choice but to roll the dice and address the current situation. Anything that may or may not happen in the future I cannot predict because unlike HMRC I do not have a time machine.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Perhaps if CCW could alleviate concerns people have regarding the TAA and the effect it could have on people's current situations then the votes would be closer to 100%?

Personally I have no choice but to roll the dice and address the current situation. Anything that may or may not happen in the future I cannot predict because unlike HMRC I do not have a time machine.

I've got an FAQ PDF for anyone who is concerned.

Just email me with the subject "FAQ"

donkeyrhubarb AT rocketmail.com

[Scotty15]

Hodge accused of receiving £1.5m in shares from tax haven

MMMMMMMMMMMM that old chestnut "horses for courses",

THE head of parliament's public accounts committee (PAC) has been accused of hypocrisy after it was claimed she received more than £1.5m in shares from the tax haven of Liechtenstein.

Margaret Hodge, the Labour politician who has built a reputation as a fierce critic of tax avoidance and "secretive" offshore funds as head of the public accounts committee, received the funds through a controversial scheme that allows Britons to obtain a generous settlement with HMRC on any undisclosed tax liabilities held in offshore bank accounts, The Times reported.

[lucozade]

I've got an FAQ PDF for anyone who is concerned.

Just email me with the subject "FAQ"

donkeyrhubarb AT rocketmail.com

Top man, cheers. Very reassuring content.

[the great escape]

MMMMMMMMMMMM that old chestnut "horses for courses",

THE head of parliament's public accounts committee (PAC) has been accused of hypocrisy after it was claimed she received more than £1.5m in shares from the tax haven of Liechtenstein.

Margaret Hodge, the Labour politician who has built a reputation as a fierce critic of tax avoidance and "secretive" offshore funds as head of the public accounts committee, received the funds through a controversial scheme that allows Britons to obtain a generous settlement with HMRC on any undisclosed tax liabilities held in offshore bank accounts, The Times reported.

About once a week I see an underground campaign that projects images of our glorious leaders on to public buildings with speech bubbles denoting the hypocrisy that is rife in our govt. Margaret Hodge reviewing her weekly shop, "A few things slipped my mind, milk, eggs, Liechstenstein", Dave Cam and the family history of offshore trusts "Tax avoidance was easier in my father's day". And we get plundered. It's a joke.

[the great escape]

I've got an FAQ PDF for anyone who is concerned.

Just email me with the subject "FAQ"

donkeyrhubarb AT rocketmail.com

Nice one. Cheers DR.

[GripRacing]

I've got an FAQ PDF for anyone who is concerned.

Just email me with the subject "FAQ"

donkeyrhubarb AT rocketmail.com

Thanks DR - answered and confirmed quite a few points.

Grip.

[webberg]

Stat attack

In 2013/14, HMRC were asked to review 38,621 decisions.

Of these - stripping out decisions on penalties - some 26% were cancelled, i.e. changed.

That's over 10,000 decisions that a case officer got wrong.

In one year.

More than half of those who asked for a review thought the process was biased with a solid 38% saying that they were positively disadvantaged.

Of those who asked for a review and had the decision confirmed, 30% thought that going to Tribunal would be too expensive or time consuming.

Whilst it is difficult to be sure and statistics are always susceptible to manipulation, it appears that those who asked for a review, failed and subsequently did not go to Tribunal are counted as part of HMRC's "success" rate of 80%. In other words and HMRC decision that was upheld by an HMRC officer and not tested before an independent Tribunal is regarded as a "win" in the anti avoidance battle.

Source:

Article by Andy Wells in Tax Adviser (the magazine of the CIOT) dated May 2015.

[Retro]

In 2013/14, HMRC were asked to review 38,621 decisions.

Of these - stripping out decisions on penalties - some 26% were cancelled, i.e. changed.

That's over 10,000 decisions that a case officer got wrong.

In one year.

More than half of those who asked for a review thought the process was biased with a solid 38% saying that they were positively disadvantaged.

Of those who asked for a review and had the decision confirmed, 30% thought that going to Tribunal would be too expensive or time consuming.

Whilst it is difficult to be sure and statistics are always susceptible to manipulation, it appears that those who asked for a review, failed and subsequently did not go to Tribunal are counted as part of HMRC's "success" rate of 80%. In other words and HMRC decision that was upheld by an HMRC officer and not tested before an independent Tribunal is regarded as a "win" in the anti avoidance battle.

Source:

Article by Andy Wells in Tax Adviser (the magazine of the CIOT) dated May 2015.

I'm not sure how much of this we should believe as 82 percent of statistics are made up.