BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[SantaClaus]

I sent a letter to Vince Cable back in February and I got a reply today:

"... we have debated the issue you raise extensively in Parliament and the problem is that there are a lot of very clever lawyers and accountants who are finding forms of tax avoidance which are highly sophisticated. In response, it has now been concluded that the only way of dealing with a lot of these schemes is for tax to be paid retrospectively.

I am not a lawyer but since you say that you are being financially ruined as a result, then what is happening may well be disproportianate, in which case I can take this up for you with HMRC. On the general issue, it is however clear that Parliament has now accepted that in many cases, if people are involved in tax avoidance schemes, they will be pursued retrospectively.

... if you would like to let me have further details, I will take up your case with HMRC."

This leaves me wondering when these discussions in Parliament have taken place. No other MPs that have been written to have mentioned this.

If this is the case, then it seems like HMRC will be deciding in future who they don't like and will be going after them via the gift of time travel. S58 won't just apply to us, it will be extended a very long way to any other scheme they don't like.

thats weird, as Vince Cable signed the petition

[BrilloPad]

thats weird, as Vince Cable signed the petition

Unless it was a different Vince Cable or a hoax?

[Emigre]

I sent a letter to Vince Cable back in February and I got a reply today:

"... we have debated the issue you raise extensively in Parliament and the problem is that there are a lot of very clever lawyers and accountants who are finding forms of tax avoidance which are highly sophisticated. In response, it has now been concluded that the only way of dealing with a lot of these schemes is for tax to be paid retrospectively.

I am not a lawyer but since you say that you are being financially ruined as a result, then what is happening may well be disproportianate, in which case I can take this up for you with HMRC. On the general issue, it is however clear that Parliament has now accepted that in many cases, if people are involved in tax avoidance schemes, they will be pursued retrospectively.

... if you would like to let me have further details, I will take up your case with HMRC."

This leaves me wondering when these discussions in Parliament have taken place. No other MPs that have been written to have mentioned this.

If this is the case, then it seems like HMRC will be deciding in future who they don't like and will be going after them via the gift of time travel. S58 won't just apply to us, it will be extended a very long way to any other scheme they don't like.

If Mr Cable is referring to the Treasury Committee meeting where his party (LibDems) tabled an amendment to S55 of BN66 then Mr Cable wasn't even present and being the LibDem Treasury spokesman that fact is disappointing.

See attached transcript of that meeting - http://www.publications.parliament.u...m/80522s03.htm.

Muddy, you should definitely revert back to Mr Cable and ask the question about where this has been debated. Has anyone already written to Colin Breed in SE Cornwall? He was leading the LibDem team on that day.

Its interesting to note that if all the non-Labour representatives on that Committee had attended that meeting and voted in favour of the amendment then Section 58 may not have happened.

The transcript makes depressing reading particularly the lies and deceit spread by Jane Kennedy. If I call her a liar often enough and with enough profile will she sue me in Court? Yes please!

[MuddyFunster]

I'll reply back to him and ask when this was debated. What he said is too ambiguous. Parliament decided it? Who was that? Labour, Lib Dems and Conservatives all agreed?? I can't see it.

It's a rather disappointing reply, especially considering that my letter was one of DR's templates and all of the comments in it were ignored.

[PlaneSailing]

I'll reply back to him and ask when this was debated. What he said is too ambiguous. Parliament decided it? Who was that? Labour, Lib Dems and Conservatives all agreed?? I can't see it.

It's a rather disappointing reply, especially considering that my letter was one of DR's templates and all of the comments in it were ignored.

I think he may be toeing a cautious line. He has given a few speeches
of late that are quite anti-avoidance and he may not want to seem too
hypocritical.

I am suprised he wasn't more out spoken about the retrospection element
though. The conclusion that Parliament has drawn there is just plain wrong,
and I suspect he knows it. Roll on the judicial review(s).

[TAF4]

I think he may be toeing a cautious line. He has given a few speeches of late that are quite anti-avoidance ........

Has anyone else noticed the term 'tax avoidance' is now slipping into common usage as a simile for 'Tax Evasion'. Avoidance is and always has been a legal duty. Opportunities are actively marketed. What is an ISA if not an avoidance measure?

How do we counter this assumption that legitimate tax planning, avoiding some exposure to taxation is automatically an offence?

[PlaneSailing]

Has anyone else noticed the term 'tax avoidance' is now slipping into common usage as a simile for 'Tax Evasion'. Avoidance is and always has been a legal duty. Opportunities are actively marketed. What is an ISA if not an avoidance measure?

How do we counter this assumption that legitimate tax planning, avoiding some exposure to taxation is automatically an offence?

We could resort to the word of Law and the House of Lords :

No man in this country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or to his property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel into his stores.
James Avon Clyde, Lord Clyde, Ayrshire Pullman Motor Services and Ritchie v. IRC (1929) 14 TC 754

Or

Every man is entitled if he can to order his affairs so as that the tax attaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it otherwise would be. If he succeeds in ordering them so as to secure this result, then, however unappreciative the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or his fellow taxpayers may be of his ingenuity, he cannot be compelled to pay an increased tax.
Thomas Tomlin, Baron Tomlin, in the UK House of Lords case, IRC v. Duke of Westminster (1936) 19 TC 490, [1936] AC 1

[Emigre]

We could resort to the word of Law and the House of Lords :

No man in this country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or to his property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel into his stores.
James Avon Clyde, Lord Clyde, Ayrshire Pullman Motor Services and Ritchie v. IRC (1929) 14 TC 754

Or

Every man is entitled if he can to order his affairs so as that the tax attaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it otherwise would be. If he succeeds in ordering them so as to secure this result, then, however unappreciative the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or his fellow taxpayers may be of his ingenuity, he cannot be compelled to pay an increased tax.
Thomas Tomlin, Baron Tomlin, in the UK House of Lords case, IRC v. Duke of Westminster (1936) 19 TC 490, [1936] AC 1

Does this not then mean that Section 58 legislated against the intent of the upper chamber, the House of Lords? I keep hearing those words about us acting against "the intent of parliament".

Only confirms my view that this Government are a law unto themselves, do as I say not as I do, with no respect for history or precedent, and no ability to draft quality legislation. Proper intent can only be conveyed by clarity of expression.

[SantaClaus]

Unless it was a different Vince Cable or a hoax?

Could be, no real way of verifying.

[helen7]

It is interesting that no mention has been made regarding the fact that Labour announced in 2005 budget that tax avoidance schemes would be closed down in future and back dated to DEC 2004.

Maybe they intend to use this as a contingency.

Does anybody know what is going on with the various 'loan' based scheme's that have been operating for many years? It seems unjust that none of these blatent artificial schemes have been treated in the same way.