BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[BrilloPad]

Send me a PM or email me at address below, and I will arrange for your account to be upgraded.

To reduce the burden on the Administrator, I will wait until I've collected a few names before passing them on.

I will PM you when your account has been upgraded.

errr : they cant PM until they have been upgraded!

IMO its best to email or post your situation on here and ask to be upgraded : we dont want any sockpuppets getting on here. Well : any more sockpuppets.....

[Toocan]

All taxpayers are entitled to be told by legislation of which the meaning is plain

HMRC have claimed that section 58, Finance Act 2008 was a clarification. They did this to try to squeeze it through legislative channels even through it stares into the headlights of the Human Rights Act.

I ask myself if there is any recent precedent that might shed some light on legislation that is in need of clarification, which one may take to mean vague.

(For the record, the legislation that the Montpelier scheme depends on is crystal clear – using the word clarification is akin to describing an elephant as small)

There was a High Court judgement on 4th July 2008 concerning Vodafone and its use of a tax avoidance scheme. You can read a summary here http://www.tax-news.com/asp/story/Vo...xxxx31644.html

The key quote from the judge is:

"It seems to me that all UK taxpayers, including Vodafone, were and are entitled to be told by legislation, of which the meaning is plain, what the tax consequences for them will be if they decide to incorporate a controlled foreign company in a (EU) member state."

This would appear to fly in the face of any concept of “retrospective clarification”.

What do you think?

[poppy01]

HMRC have claimed that section 58, Finance Act 2008 was a clarification. They did this to try to squeeze it through legislative channels even through it stares into the headlights of the Human Rights Act.

I ask myself if there is any recent president that might shed some light on legislation that is in need of clarification, which one may take to mean vague.

(For the record, the legislation that the Montpelier scheme depends on is crystal clear – using the word clarification is akin to describing an elephant as small)

There was a High Court judgement on 4th July 2008 concerning Vodafone and its use of a tax avoidance scheme. You can read a summary here http://www.tax-news.com/asp/story/Vo...xxxx31644.html

The key quote from the judge is:

"It seems to me that all UK taxpayers, including Vodafone, were and are entitled to be told by legislation, of which the meaning is plain, what the tax consequences for them will be if they decide to incorporate a controlled foreign company in a (EU) member state."

This would appear to fly in the face of any concept of “retrospective clarification”.

What do you think?

it sounds very promising to me

[Emigre]

of which the meaning is plain[/B], what the tax consequences for them will be if they decide to incorporate a controlled foreign company in a (EU) member state."

This is the tenet of certainty set out by Adam Smith. It is as true today as it was in the 18th century. Not only does the legislation need to be plain, taxpayers need to know what it will be so that they can plan accordingly, rather than being told what it was after the event when by its very nature the taxpayer is deprived of all rights to manage their income and assets to their best advantage.

Most people entered the MP or similar schemes as a result of being uncertain about their situation within IR35. The spectre and reality of retrospective legislation now creates a level of uncertainty for ALL taxpayers. S58 in 2008, retrospective increases to NI/IT to pay off the deficit in 2009? Allowing s58 FA2008 to stand gives the Govt a remit to make more and more retrospective raids on livelihoods of innocent people.

You don't need to have been on this scheme to express your concerns to your MP. Retrospection is state theft and an unsavoury method of covering up Govt incompetence.

[HMRCAreCrooks]

Here Here..

I've had a few emails from people who were not in the scheme offering to send letters to help our cause.

I never expected this but I'm sure I can speak for everyone in saying we are really grateful for their support.

This is fantastic.

I am posting my letter today to Teresa May, Conservative. I am also thinking of getting my wife to post one, from a slightly different angle.

[HMRCAreCrooks]

The following Conservative MPs will already be receiving multiple letters:

Ian Taylor - Esher & Walton (2)
John Redwood - Wokingham (3)
David Cameron - Witney (2)

If they could get a couple more letters then it might start alarm bells ringing.

To find out more about Section 58, all they would need to do is talk to one of their colleagues on the Committee, especially David Gauke.

Committee Members

† Blizzard, Mr. Bob (Waveney) (Lab)
† Bone, Mr. Peter (Wellingborough) (Con)
† Breed, Mr. Colin (South-East Cornwall) (LD)
† Eagle, Angela (Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury)
† Efford, Clive (Eltham) (Lab)
† Field, Mr. Mark (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
† Gauke, Mr. David (South-West Hertfordshire) (Con)
† Greening, Justine (Putney) (Con)
† Hall, Patrick (Bedford) (Lab)
† Hammond, Mr. Philip (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
† Hoban, Mr. Mark (Fareham) (Con)
† Joyce, Mr. Eric (Falkirk) (Lab)
† Kennedy, Jane (Financial Secretary to the Treasury)
† Morden, Jessica (Newport, East) (Lab)
† Palmer, Dr. Nick (Broxtowe) (Lab)
† Pound, Stephen (Ealing, North) (Lab)
† Pugh, Dr. John (Southport) (LD)
† Simon, Mr. Siôn (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
† Thornberry, Emily (Islington, South and Finsbury) (Lab)
† Todd, Mr. Mark (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
† Ussher, Kitty (Economic Secretary to the Treasury)
† Wright, David (Telford) (Lab)

I am going to get my wife to write to Cameron directly.

[HMRCAreCrooks]

Great Find

HMRC have claimed that section 58, Finance Act 2008 was a clarification. They did this to try to squeeze it through legislative channels even through it stares into the headlights of the Human Rights Act.

I ask myself if there is any recent precedent that might shed some light on legislation that is in need of clarification, which one may take to mean vague.

(For the record, the legislation that the Montpelier scheme depends on is crystal clear – using the word clarification is akin to describing an elephant as small)

There was a High Court judgement on 4th July 2008 concerning Vodafone and its use of a tax avoidance scheme. You can read a summary here http://www.tax-news.com/asp/story/Vo...xxxx31644.html

The key quote from the judge is:

"It seems to me that all UK taxpayers, including Vodafone, were and are entitled to be told by legislation, of which the meaning is plain, what the tax consequences for them will be if they decide to incorporate a controlled foreign company in a (EU) member state."

This would appear to fly in the face of any concept of “retrospective clarification”.

What do you think?

Thats a great find Toocan!

[HalfMonkey]

Verbal Submission

When will we hear the outcome of the verbal submission of the JR?

[poppy01]

There was a High Court judgement on 4th July 2008 concerning Vodafone and its use of a tax avoidance scheme. You can read a summary here http://www.tax-news.com/asp/story/Vo...xxxx31644.html

The key quote from the judge is:

"It seems to me that all UK taxpayers, including Vodafone, were and are entitled to be told by legislation, of which the meaning is plain, what the tax consequences for them will be if they decide to incorporate a controlled foreign company in a (EU) member state."

Having read through this it looks like another badly worded tax law that didnt quite do what HMRC 'intended'. Also with £2bn in revenue at stake (dwarfs the 150m they think they'll get out of us), surely this is another perfect vehicle for restrospective 'clarification'.... why is it just us little guys they are playing hardball with....

is it cos we are an easy target? is it because if they introduced retrospection that hit the likes of Vodafone, there really would be a corporate rush to the lifeboats to get out of UK plc.

[futurecat]

Guardian Section on Tax Gap

Hi,

The Guardian newspaper has a good section on the "Tax Gap". It would seem HMRC are definatley under resourced. One comment in this article (see below) states that HMRC now have a policy of not persuing litigation when there is only a 50 / 50 chance of success. Admittedly this seems to relate to large corporates rather than our small minow companies.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...inland-revenue

Futurecat.