Originally posted by travellingknob
View Post
-
Hi Travellingknob. Thanks for delurking and welcome to the forum. Have you sent your CNs off to MontP?Join the No To Retro Tax Campaign Now
"Tax evasion is easy: it involves breaking the law. By tax avoidance OECD means unacceptable avoidance ... This can be contrasted with acceptable tax planning. What is critical is transparency" - Donald Johnston, Secretary-General, OECD -
How long does it take to sign the petition? 30 seconds? On the off-chance it might do some good, why not do it?Originally posted by travellingknob View PostComment
-
Response from local MP
Finally, I have received a response from my local MP (Mike Weir) to my question about Section 58. His own answer was simply to pass on a copy of the response he received from Stephen Timms at HM Treasury. Mr Timms answer (verbatim apart from my personal data) -
Dear Michael,
Thank you for your letter of 22nd April enclosing correspondence from your constituent XX, about section 58 of the 2008 Finance Act which was explained in Budget Note 66.
As Jane Kennedy indicated during the Parliamentary debate on the Finance Bill, section 58 prevents a tax avoidance scheme which was set up to abuse the UK's Double Taxation Treaties. The scheme also set out to circumvent legislation introduced in 1987 specifically to stop this type of abuse which itself was retrospective in nature. The Government does not believe that the scheme was ever consistent with the law, since the 1987 legislation applied to it. Section 58 makes it clear that this type of avoidance does not work, never has done and is entirely cocnsistent with the action that Parliament took in 1987.
The Inland Revenue first learned of the scheme in 2001, and successfully settled enquiries with one of the original promoters of the scheme who accepted that the income should be taxed in the UK. The Revenue subsequently initiated enquiries into other users of the scheme. However, during 2007 both the number of disclosures and 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 exceptual circumstances, the Government reserves the 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 ciontravene the European Convention on Human Rights.
Prior to introducing the legislation the Government considered very carefully the issues relating to fairness and certainty, and the public interest, and took the view that in the circumstances the legislation was appropriate. The users of this scheme embarked on a highly aggressive attempt to avoid tax on UK income or gains in a manner which Parliament previously sought to prevent.
The legislation is now the subject of a number of applications for judicial review. Should those applications go forward, the court will adjudicate on these matters. For the avoidance of doubt, the Government will contest any such proceedings.
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.
Please pass on my thanks to XX for taking the trouble to raise his concerns about this with us.
Signed - Stephen Timms
Comment
-
Well, I'm kicking Mr YouknowWho (TM)Originally posted by ContractIn View Post
out of his seat.
He can sit on the floor!
'Orwell's 1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual'. -
Nick Pickles, director of Big Brother Watch.Comment
-
Will you recognize him?Originally posted by SantaClaus View PostWell, I'm kicking Mr YouknowWho (TM) out of his seat.
He can sit on the floor!
I know he will spot you : you have a long white beard and wear a red coat.Comment
-
Good idea...he'll make a comfortable foot rest....Originally posted by SantaClaus View PostWell, I'm kicking Mr YouknowWho (TM) out of his seat.
He can sit on the floor!Comment
-
[QUOTE=nolongerlurker;867168]The Inland Revenue first learned of the scheme in 2001, and successfully settled enquiries with one of the original promoters of the scheme who accepted that the income should be taxed in the UK. The Revenue
Anyone know the details of the settlement, when it was done, was this for the full amount our CN's have been indicating or did they do a deal ?Comment
-
[QUOTE=scott_free;867421]They did a deal. Some concessions were granted.Originally posted by nolongerlurker View Post
If anyone wants to see the gory details, email me.
DR
[email protected]Comment
-
Closure Notices
Just heard that around 1000 people have now received them.
There are still about 400 people who have not.
Of course, it's still early day. After all, it is only 11 months since the legislation came into force.
<----- The Donkey is right!!!Comment
-
Thats a pretty decisisive response from Mr Timms. I'd be interested to hear how and under what consetions they settled other cases.
"Retrospective legislation does not in itself contravene the European Convention on Human Rights."
So, you can have a law and change it ruining peopels lives and thats acceptable..
Originally posted by nolongerlurker View PostFinally, I have received a response from my local MP (Mike Weir) to my question about Section 58. His own answer was simply to pass on a copy of the response he received from Stephen Timms at HM Treasury. Mr Timms answer (verbatim apart from my personal data) -
Dear Michael,
Thank you for your letter of 22nd April enclosing correspondence from your constituent XX, about section 58 of the 2008 Finance Act which was explained in Budget Note 66.
As Jane Kennedy indicated during the Parliamentary debate on the Finance Bill, section 58 prevents a tax avoidance scheme which was set up to abuse the UK's Double Taxation Treaties. The scheme also set out to circumvent legislation introduced in 1987 specifically to stop this type of abuse which itself was retrospective in nature. The Government does not believe that the scheme was ever consistent with the law, since the 1987 legislation applied to it. Section 58 makes it clear that this type of avoidance does not work, never has done and is entirely cocnsistent with the action that Parliament took in 1987.
The Inland Revenue first learned of the scheme in 2001, and successfully settled enquiries with one of the original promoters of the scheme who accepted that the income should be taxed in the UK. The Revenue subsequently initiated enquiries into other users of the scheme. However, during 2007 both the number of disclosures and 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 exceptual circumstances, the Government reserves the 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 ciontravene the European Convention on Human Rights.
Prior to introducing the legislation the Government considered very carefully the issues relating to fairness and certainty, and the public interest, and took the view that in the circumstances the legislation was appropriate. The users of this scheme embarked on a highly aggressive attempt to avoid tax on UK income or gains in a manner which Parliament previously sought to prevent.
The legislation is now the subject of a number of applications for judicial review. Should those applications go forward, the court will adjudicate on these matters. For the avoidance of doubt, the Government will contest any such proceedings.
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.
Please pass on my thanks to XX for taking the trouble to raise his concerns about this with us.
Signed - Stephen Timms
Comment
Comment