BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[BrilloPad]

If HMRC have let off some lucky individuals/partnerships from their tax due under the DTA, for whatever dubious reasons, then is'nt that a show stopper in terms of their claims of retrospection ?

If they knew and always knew it was illegal, and had told everyone it was as of 1987, then how and why could they have allowed these people to gain what is in their eyes an illegal tax advantage ???

Welcome to the crazy world of HMRC!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

CTD schedule

What does this mean? Do I need to specify the "Schedule" (whatever that is) when purchasing the CTD? Or do I just send them the cash, and await the CTD in the post?

The schedule is just the list of taxes which are covered by a CTD (eg. income tax, NIC, CGT etc.).

You don't need to mention this. Just send a cheque with a covering letter.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Grossly Disproportionate

MPs and Parliament will never accept that the scheme we used was alright. OK, it was legal but we can't expect them to condone tax avoidance.

BUT, and this is very important, we don't need them to. All we need them to see is that by bankrupting people, the Government's response is grossly disproportionate, and therefore two wrongs don't make a right.

Keep sending me those emails.

[NO TO RETRO]

Retrospectivity is permissable?!

MPs and Parliament will never accept that the scheme we used was alright. OK, it was legal but we can't expect them to condone tax avoidance.

BUT, and this is very important, we don't need them to. All we need them to see is that by bankrupting people, the Government's response is grossly disproportionate, and therefore two wrongs don't make a right.

Keep sending me those emails.

Just looking at the update from MontP - it states the 1st reason the JR was refused is because 'retrospectivity is permissbale where it concerns an anti avoidance tax provision and Parliament is concerned to re-assert its original intention'. MontP then only go onto attack the 'original intention' part of this statement.
Is retrospectivity EVER permissable in law (I thought that was the whole point of introducing a law - to change something) and why don't MontP attack this part of it in the letter?

[poppy01]

This has been talked about previously but I wonder if this might be a time to consider a full page ad in the times, outlining chapter and verse, the history of this case and the incompetence and face saving behaviour of government and HMRC, including mention of 'deals' previously done, investigations without questions, treasury committee misled etc.. etc... dont know how much good it would do, but I feel it is time this got out to a wider audience...

[elpinar]

if you get into placing ads in the public domain surely you get into deformation etc if you get anything wrong - and so another costly door could open - unless everything is 100% provable etc ......

[phileds]

Thanks

Thanks for the warm welcome, and the advice, perhaps I would do better not to read HMRC documentation at 1am next time!

Now I just have to sell a few children to pay for the CTD

What a nasty government this has turned out to be. And I was one of the sadly euphoric when Blair was voted in back in '97....before he and Dubye got married in Iraq. Deeply off-topic, so back on now.....and now with tax revenues hitting the basement and going through to the centre of the earth, I have no doubt HMRC will be pulling out their best people (ha ha ha) to win this.

I'm heartened by the reminder here that the Arctic case went to two courts and "won" before finally being rejected by the House of Lords. There's hope yet. Though it's disconcerting that the JR was so summarily and rapidly rejected, and if this was for somewhat procedural or presentational reasons, it makes one wonder how well prepared the submission was.

Anyway, chins up!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

This has been talked about previously but I wonder if this might be a time to consider a full page ad in the times, outlining chapter and verse, the history of this case and the incompetence and face saving behaviour of government and HMRC, including mention of 'deals' previously done, investigations without questions, treasury committee misled etc.. etc... dont know how much good it would do, but I feel it is time this got out to a wider audience...

No matter how you dress this up you won't get much sympathy from joe public. Putting an ad in a Paper would be like a red rag to a bull.

Politicians are the only people who will sympathise. They may not agree with what we did but when they hear what S58 will do to ordinary families, they will realise that the Govt's response was totally disproportionate.

For example, I had an email this morning from someone who gave up contracting a year or so ago to do a Degree course. If HMRC get their way then she will have to abandon her studies. Obviously she is just the sort of "fat cat" the legislation was aimed at!!!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Letters

I have had just under 50 requests for the letter so far. I would like to reach at least 100.

Please keep them coming.

If you are sending it, it's worth including personal anecdotes like the person I mentioned in my previous post who may have to give up her Degree course. Anything which dispels the myth that we all rolling in it is going to help get our message across.

No offence to the property developers but I think we know why the Govt made a big play on them rather than us.

[poppy01]

For example, I had an email this morning from someone who gave up contracting a year or so ago to do a Degree course. If HMRC get their way then she will have to abandon her studies. Obviously she is just the sort of "fat cat" the legislation was aimed at!!!

Fair enough , guess your right, Just felt like something we could do. It's the sense of powerlessness that gets to me.

Since we are again in limbo with the JR, perhaps some personal anecdotal stuff on here might be of interest.

My house has hardly any equity in it. I left the scheme in 2003 and tried a move to New Zealand. This was mostly prompted by IR35 and worries about Montpelier (I personally never felt at ease with it). We sold our old house just before the main property boom. After 18 months or so we came home to find most property beyond us. Scraped together a deposit and bought this place. At the time we took out a Northern Rock cash back, with which I hoped to pay any tax bill that might result from MP. Naturally over the many years since this has been frittered away (paid off other loans / credit cards with it). The property plus the early settlement penalty may yield about 25% of my MP bill, probably just enough for HMRC to think it worth bankrupting me.

I have an 18 year old son who just started uni. Since he is at an English (not Scottish) university he has to pay fees. We are trying our utmost to pay his way through without resorting to student loans (who wants to start their career saddled with 21k of debt) but if HMRC win that will all change. Another case of a 'fat cat' getting their come uppance. I have a wife who is a dedicated anaesthetic nurse, works all the hours god sends. She is out of her mind with worry about this situation now. Another 'fat cat'.....

Nice one Gordon, you're the best, saviour of the world.