BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[SantaClaus]

Even if that were the case, which others will no doubt disagree, then the retrospection should only go back as far as 2004.

No warning was given in 2001/2/3 when I was using the scheme but I've still been slapped with a bunch of closure notices including 40% interest.

I dont think they even have a case for retrospection going back to 2004.
A warning issued in the budget is not the same as legislation that receives royal assent. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Otherwise I will listen to every future speech by Alistair Darling in case he says something that could affect my tax position!

[RockTheBoat]

Otherwise I will listen to every future speech by Alistair Darling in case he says something that could affect my tax position!

surely you mean

"every future speech by Alistair Darling in case he says something that could affect my past tax position!"

[smalldog]

in which case why even bother listening to his speech?! what he announces now could change at whim in the future retrosepctively so why even bother taking any notice of anything he says

[Toocan]

It might be worth a follow up asking him to clarify? In the 2004(?) budget when the disclosure regime for avoidance schemes was announced it was also stated that failed avoidance schemes would be backdated to 2004.

DO NOT ask questions relating to 2004 - this is misinformation that does not help our case.

The 2004 statement refered to employment taxes not Self-Employment taxes. If HMRC sought to bring this scheme under PAYE they would loose as it is the employer that must collect them, not the "employee".

In addition, s.58 has been back-dated to the 1950's - not to 2004.

[Toocan]

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).

Perhaps Vince wants us to get back to him with an argument that explains why the scheme should not be "dealt with" in this way? ie he is giving us an opening rather than stating a fix position. "Tell me why it should not be closed down this way?" The answer would appear to be that HMRC did not close down the scheme for EIGHT years despire knowing about it. ie legit expectation.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Follow up letter

Any more takers for the followup letter asking your MP to chase up the Treasury?

The letter mentions the Petition, and (as suggested by Santaclaus) I've included a request for MPs to sign it!

If it is several weeks since your MP referred this to the Treasury, then please send them a reminder.

Thanks
DR

[silver_lining]

laying Cable....

I once again think we have 1000s of lawyers on the forum... we, collectively are dissecting words of non legals...e.g. Cable...

I don't believe he signed the petition...

second. maybe he has changed his mind/ position on reto..... thats politics...

Why not ask simple questions... adopt the child mentality.. i.e

send him a letter ,ask the simple questions, whats your forking opinion on this? are u for or against...if u are for sign the forking document/ petition and tell me how WE are going to stop it... not bulltulip maybes, ifs, buts.... crap. lots of opinions and very small testicles... gets me annoyed, when I see opinions flying about with v little action (PCG exception noted).

All the various people/ bodies "its wrong, its wrong".... i.e. Law Society, Chartered Bean counters..... which would amount to 1000s.... and yet when it comes to signing a formal petition to say, I agree or don't ... the scrotum retracts violently ... followed by silience.

rant over.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

send him a letter ,ask the simple questions, whats your forking opinion on this?

If we're not beating about the bush, then forget sending letters, confront him face to face.

[SantaClaus]

surely you mean

"every future speech by Alistair Darling in case he says something that could affect my past tax position!"

yes, exactly!

[Ratican]

Colin Breed / Brown / Darling

Has anyone already written to Colin Breed in SE Cornwall? He was leading the LibDem team on that day.

I wrote to Colin Breed. Here is the reply:

Dear Ratican
My membership of the Treasury Select Committee and on the Finance Bill Committee was on behalf of Parliament, not a constituent or general public representation. You will still have to go through your own MP.
However as you are aware I voted against retrospection which is being used frequently by this Govt on grounds of tackling tax "evasion". I believe lawful tax "avoidance" is perfectly permissible. I fully understand your concerns but you must address these to your own MP.
Kind regards
Colin Breed
Member of Parliament for South East Cornwall Liberal Democrat Treasury Spokesman

I also wrote to Darling and Brown and several others - but my letters were passed to Ian Wright and I received this response (standard?):

CT & VAT
Specialist International
3rd Floor
100 Parliament Street
London
SW1A 2BQ
Tel 020-7147-2701
Mobile 07969-506906
Fax 020-7147-2649

Dear Ratican
Thank you for your e mail dated 24 November 2008 to the Chancellor and others. I have been asked to respond to your e mail and I am sorry for the delay in replying to this.
You have asked for information about the number of users of the tax avoidance scheme concerned. Unfortunately we do not hold information in the form you have requested and the data you ask for could not be obtained without a great deal of work, the cost of which would not be reasonable.
You ask why HMRC did not litigate some cases rather than making the changes that were made in the 2008 Finance Act. In my e mail of 6 October I tried to explain why the decision was made to clarify the law rather than litigate the issues. As I explained, during 2007 the rapid expansion of the scheme led the Government to the view that a legislative approach was appropriate.
The intentions of the Government in terms of changes to tax legislation are announced in the Pre-Budget Statement or in the Budget itself. This applies to the legislation introduced by Clause 55 and any other proposed measures. There was no mention of any revision to this legislation in the recent Pre-Budget Statement.
Finally you ask about the effects of the legislation on the users of this tax avoidance scheme. HM Revenue and Customs is obliged to collect tax legally due. The tax on scheme users as a result of S58 Finance Act 2008 (the final version of Clause 55) is legally due. Where taxpayers have difficulty meeting their obligations, HMRC has established procedures and guidelines which can be found at http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/howtopay/prob-indiv-comp.htm. In addition, in a letter of 22 July from HMRC you were given details of two contact names and phone numbers with whom you can discuss in detail any concerns you may have about your particular circumstances.
Because of the current economic conditions HMRC has introduced a new Business Payment Support Service for those having difficulty in paying tax lawfully due. This new service was announced by the Chancellor in his Pre Budget Report. If you seek information about this, please refer to the HMRC website at www.hmrc.gov.uk/pbr2008/business-payment.htm.
Thank you for taking the trouble to raise your concerns about this with us.
Yours sincerely

Ian Wright
International Specialist
[email protected]