BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[phileds]

On the distinction between avoidance and evasion I totally agree, the government's spin machine is trying to conflate the two.

People who put money in ISA's, or engage in legal tax planning (e.g. owner of BHS Philip Green, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Green#Tax_avoidance), are avoiding tax.

People who accept payment in cash which remains undeclared are evading tax.

[poppy01]

I know where you are coming from but does it really matter what you call it? After all, it is registered as a tax avoidance scheme under the disclosure rules.

I think we need to reclaim the words "tax avoidance". The Government want to portray this as wrong but it is most emphatically not.

The Government needs to be careful about blurring the distinction between legal avoidance and illegal evasion, otherwise more people might opt for the latter and not bother declaring anything.

They are increasingly using the term 'non-compliance' which in their minds encapsulates both evasion and avoidance. The common-sense view is that avoidance is compliance with the exact letter of the law, if not its 'intent'.
The intent of the law is a very contentious issue, as this could be whatever the govt says it was, regardless of the actual written words. It is a blank cheque that an immoral govt such as this one can wield with the collusion of the courts to ride roughshod over citizens rights and natural (obvious) justice.

The intent of the law should and must be precisely what is written in statute, If this does not meet with the intent, as in our case, then its government's duty is to change it, but it cannot be acceptable to do so retrospectively.

This seems to me so obvious and correct that I cannot conceive of a government institution arguing against it, unless that institution gave no regard whatever to our ancient culture, rights and freedoms. Such an institution would have to be motivated by pure spite, jealousy and petulance.

May I introduce HMRC today.

[Fog]

Response from MP

I had a response over the weekend from my MP (John Redwood). I am very impressed so far as he has responded twice in two weeks - and it was half term last week.

More importantly however he said that I (read DR there!!) presented the facts extremely well. (Many thanks for the follow up details DR). He will be taking it up directly with the Treasury..... good news.

He has offered a meeting as well so I will be taking him up on the offer - but I want him to have met with the Treasury first. I'd be interested in the top 10 questions people feel I should be asking him - although I have a good idea myself.

Fog

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I had a response over the weekend from my MP (John Redwood). I am very impressed so far as he has responded twice in two weeks - and it was half term last week.

More importantly however he said that I (read DR there!!) presented the facts extremely well. (Many thanks for the follow up details DR). He will be taking it up directly with the Treasury..... good news.

He has offered a meeting as well so I will be taking him up on the offer - but I want him to have met with the Treasury first. I'd be interested in the top 10 questions people feel I should be asking him - although I have a good idea myself.

Fog

Excellent. John was a bit of a headcase in the Thatcher years but I suspect, just like Michael Portillo, he's calmed down a lot since then.

This guy is definitely no lightweight and he could, if he wanted to, really stir things up.

I am hoping someone like him will not settle for the standard Stephen Timms response.

[poppy01]

I had a response over the weekend from my MP (John Redwood). I am very impressed so far as he has responded twice in two weeks - and it was half term last week.

More importantly however he said that I (read DR there!!) presented the facts extremely well. (Many thanks for the follow up details DR). He will be taking it up directly with the Treasury..... good news.

He has offered a meeting as well so I will be taking him up on the offer - but I want him to have met with the Treasury first. I'd be interested in the top 10 questions people feel I should be asking him - although I have a good idea myself.

Fog

thats brilliant, well done . quite a political heavyweight to get onside

[AlbionRovers]

Advice please.
I have no agent acting for me re. Gov Gateway.
I received a self-assessment for 2002-03 last week.
But no closure notice.
I fax'd S-A docs to MP which they received.
MP have asked me to contact HMRC to ask about the corresponding CN, they reckon that HMRC won't speak to them because I have no specified agent.
No-one ever asked me to fill in an agent form?
HMRC hadn't a clue what I was on about and cut me off.
What now?

[KiwiGuy]

ha Ha ha

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/b...-200902231597/

[sgee]

Top 10 Questions

Well, my top ten includes for any MP willing to do anything on this is:

- Why was the inclusion of a "clarification" dating back to 1987 accepted so easily, when the implications for retrospective taxes (something until recently universally considered a bad idea for some many reasons I won't go into here) are so huge. Is this not a failure of process somewhere that this was accepted and voted through by people on a committee, some of whom later admitted that they didn't even understand what they were voting for?

- Following on from this, if a clarification actually changes the situation with respect to a point of law (in our case the laws governing the scheme, which had been thoroughly examined by several well qualified parties and agreement of the legality of the scheme widely accepted), then once again - is this really a simple "clarification"? If it is accepted that it isn;t then the whole issue needs to be re-examined, as the committee has been misled - apparently unaware of the massive implications for people affected by the clarification.

- Additionally, since the scheme providers followed all the guidance given to them by HMRC and the government in terms of disclosure, why did HMRC not engage properly with the scheme's legal team to test the legality of the scheme in a court of law and either declare it unsound soon after disclosure preventing new members becoming enmeshed in it, or if finding the scheme legally sound, but not something they wished to continue, engage with the government as they normally would to create new legislation going forward to close the scheme? Something that is accepted as normal practice to ensure that the UK is a good place to do business as there is an element of certainty and continuity in the way the government conducts itself with respect to law making - enabling those subject to UK law to be able to plan their future with reasonable certainty as is a a basic human right in a civilized democratic society in my humble opinion.


Hope thats useful and not too much of a rant!

si

[Cugel]

Reply from Stephen Timms

I wrote to my MP David Ruffley back in Sept last year regarding my circumstances and worries regarding Clause 55. He wrote back to say that he would pass the matter onto Jane Kennedy. That I thought was the end of it, but I recently received a second letter from him with an attached letter from Stephen Timms, I will post up the pertinent parts for those that are interested.

"Cugel is concerned about the retrospective nature of section 58 and his liability for tax in respect of this scheme and he draws attention to a judicial review being undertaken on behalf of some of the scheme participants.

As Jane Kennedy indicated during a Parliamentary debate on the Finance Bill, section 58 prevents a tax avoidance scheme, one of the purposes of which was to abuse the UK's Double taxation treaties. The scheme also set out to circumvent legislation introduced in 1987 for the same purpose and which itself was retrospective in nature. By retrospectively clarifying the 1987 legislation, section 58 makes it clear that this type of avoidance does not work and never has done.

The Government does not believe that the scheme achieved its purpose since the 1987 legislation clearly applied to it. However, during 2007 both the number of scheme users and the amounts of tax involved reached such a high level that the Government decided that a legislative response was appropriate.

The Government has always limited the use of retrospection as far as possible, using it for the worst cases of avoidance to ensure fairness and certainty for all taxpayers. That continues to be Government policy. In exceptional circumstances, the Government reserves the right to use retrospection, as in this instance, where it is fair, proportionate and in the public interest to do so. Retrospective legislation does not in itself contravene the European convention on Human Rights.

The Government is aware of the Judicial Revue proceedings that have been instigated. As you will understand, I can make no further comment on this matter."

Stephen Timms"


The rest of the letter goes on to describe ways that I can pay and thanks me for raising my concerns.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Urgent Warning

If you plan to be away from home for anything more than a week or two, and you have not yet received Closure Notices, then make arrangements for your post to be collected or redirected.

I've just had an email from a poor chap who has been away for 3 months, and you can guess what he has come home to!!!

Don't let this happen to you.