No To Retro Tax - Ongoing battle against S58 FA2008

[MishiMoo]

Going to press on George

I could be wrong, but once the first batch of our cases are submitted to the FTTT, the interest of the press as to the source of a tax "class action" may be awakened. This may or may not be a good thing, with public opinion on legal tax avoidance being so warped at present, but assuming that it does, we should be 100% ready with the correct summary / spin as to why >400 ordinary bods were so incensed as to fund & launch a massive legal challenge. Has anyone given much thought to this? Or would it all be sub judice, perhaps? Do the same rules apply as in courts?

[bananarepublic]

I could be wrong, but once the first batch of our cases are submitted to the FTTT, the interest of the press as to the source of a tax "class action" may be awakened. This may or may not be a good thing, with public opinion on legal tax avoidance being so warped at present, but assuming that it does, we should be 100% ready with the correct summary / spin as to why >400 ordinary bods were so incensed as to fund & launch a massive legal challenge. Has anyone given much thought to this? Or would it all be sub judice, perhaps? Do the same rules apply as in courts?

Who cares what the press/public think? We aren't appealing to the court of public opinion.

[marketingguy]

Media Relations

MishiMoo makes a really valid point here. The BBC have now got the bit between their teeth and are jumping on the tax avoidance bandwagon and have 'uncovered' an 'aggressive tax avoidance scheme' which made national news last week - certainly on radio 2 the link is here
BBC uncovers 'aggressive' tax avoidance scheme - BBC News

- and yup this is the same BBC that was encouraging their top salaried earners to go off books as self employed consultants a few years back. Disguised employment? Surely not!

They are now taking the high moral ground given that the difference between evasion and avoidance has been blurred by the politicians in the leaders debates, and we need to be very careful how our case is positioned - because the media will tar us all with the same brush.

Given that we seem to have an unexpectedly large fighting fund, maybe we should consider using a little of that to formalise a media positioning, should we need it. And we have a great case, retrospective legislation, misleading parliament etc. and I suspect, given Hector's track record for bullying, they'll already have some dirty tricks up their sleeve - might even have leaked the Anderson story themselves to keep the public perception up that legal avoidance is as bad as (same as) evasion.

I could be wrong, but once the first batch of our cases are submitted to the FTTT, the interest of the press as to the source of a tax "class action" may be awakened. This may or may not be a good thing, with public opinion on legal tax avoidance being so warped at present, but assuming that it does, we should be 100% ready with the correct summary / spin as to why >400 ordinary bods were so incensed as to fund & launch a massive legal challenge. Has anyone given much thought to this? Or would it all be sub judice, perhaps? Do the same rules apply as in courts?

[eek]

Who cares what the press/public think? We aren't appealing to the court of public opinion.

There is no harm in having a short 1 page summary of the background to the case. It saves having to spend time repeating the same things to people....

I don't think anyone would suggest seeking publicity but having something approved and ready to go if the press start asking questions would be a sensible plan...

[DonkeyRhubarb]

PR

We've still got Whitehouse on minimal retainer should we need them.

[TykeMerc]

There is no harm in having a short 1 page summary of the background to the case. It saves having to spend time repeating the same things to people....

I don't think anyone would suggest seeking publicity but having something approved and ready to go if the press start asking questions would be a sensible plan...

Wise suggestion, with the organisation and so many peoples lives involved there's some benefit in having the party line agreed and unequivocal. If nothing else having an action group that's raised over £300k is the type of thing that may catch some press attention.

[Resolute B]

"......... and we need to be very careful how our case is positioned - because the media will tar us all with the same brush.

Given that we seem to have an unexpectedly large fighting fund, maybe we should consider using a little of that to formalise a media positioning, should we need it. And we have a great case, retrospective legislation, misleading parliament etc. and I suspect, given Hector's track record for bullying, they'll already have some dirty tricks up their sleeve - might even have leaked the Anderson story themselves to keep the public perception up that legal avoidance is as bad as (same as) evasion."

Surely, our position is that HMRC thought we were tax avoiders but we are simple agency workers whose agency have not paid HMRC the tax that was due!

[eek]

MishiMoo makes a really valid point here. The BBC have now got the bit between their teeth and are jumping on the tax avoidance bandwagon and have 'uncovered' an 'aggressive tax avoidance scheme' which made national news last week - certainly on radio 2 the link is here
BBC uncovers 'aggressive' tax avoidance scheme - BBC News

- and yup this is the same BBC that was encouraging their top salaried earners to go off books as self employed consultants a few years back. Disguised employment? Surely not!

They are now taking the high moral ground given that the difference between evasion and avoidance has been blurred by the politicians in the leaders debates, and we need to be very careful how our case is positioned - because the media will tar us all with the same brush.

Given that we seem to have an unexpectedly large fighting fund, maybe we should consider using a little of that to formalise a media positioning, should we need it. And we have a great case, retrospective legislation, misleading parliament etc. and I suspect, given Hector's track record for bullying, they'll already have some dirty tricks up their sleeve - might even have leaked the Anderson story themselves to keep the public perception up that legal avoidance is as bad as (same as) evasion.

I don't think the Anderson story is as clear cut as HMRC leaked it. If you look at the opinion on the scheme on here you will notice that weberg thought it was legitimate others (me and Lisa) think its aggressive as it requires unnatural business structures for it to work... My inkling with the difference in viewpoints is that weberg deals with tax for a living, Lisa and myself view from a mid point of being the general public with a bit of knowledge regarding these type of schemes..

Now I don't think you need to actively seek press support but as I've already said you need to be prepared enough to have something ready instead of

1) trying to ignore the story or
2) allowing someone inappropriate or ill prepared who may say the wrong thing or phrase it badly...

There is a good story here with plenty of interesting things for an interested journalist to build a story hook on. What you don't want is to have HMRC dictating the tone of the story with no ability to present the real story...

[steveb555]

Press Attention

Wise suggestion, with the organisation and so many peoples lives involved there's some benefit in having the party line agreed and unequivocal. If nothing else having an action group that's raised over £300k is the type of thing that may catch some press attention.

As long as the agreed party line is supportive, and not in any way detrimental to the case being prepared by the appointed Legal Counsel, I also agree.

[marketingguy]

That's all I was thinking - to have the case concisely mapped out on one page - should the need arise. I was absolutely NOT suggesting we went pro-active on this. And it seems that DR has already got the bases covered on this one!

I don't think the Anderson story is as clear cut as HMRC leaked it. If you look at the opinion on the scheme on here you will notice that weberg thought it was legitimate others (me and Lisa) think its aggressive as it requires unnatural business structures for it to work... My inkling with the difference in viewpoints is that weberg deals with tax for a living, Lisa and myself view from a mid point of being the general public with a bit of knowledge regarding these type of schemes..

Now I don't think you need to actively seek press support but as I've already said you need to be prepared enough to have something ready instead of

1) trying to ignore the story or
2) allowing someone inappropriate or ill prepared who may say the wrong thing or phrase it badly...

There is a good story here with plenty of interesting things for an interested journalist to build a story hook on. What you don't want is to have HMRC dictating the tone of the story with no ability to present the real story...