BN66 - JR Judgement Day

[Rhydd]

Limiting retrospective tax legislation

This suggestion may not prove popular, but I'll raise it and we can air our thoughts.

I am concerned that our case may be rejected by Members of Parliament who we contact because they think that one day in the future they might want to enact retrospective tax legislation and because of this they will not support our case.

No political party will tie its hands by agreeing never to enact retrospective legislation and I think that weakens sympathy for people affected by BN66.

How about this as a proposal that folks who are writing to their members of parliament might put forward?

When writing to MP's, while saying that retrospective legislation is nearly always wrong:

1) It should only be enacted in the most exceptional circumstances
2) How far back it can go should ALWAYS be limited - preferably by statute.

Point 2) is the idea here. In the case of BN66, backdating seven years (with interest) is completely unreasonable.

So how about suggesting to our MP's that when, in exceptional circumstances retrospective tax legislation is enacted, that it will NEVER go back further than the tax period before the one in which the legislation is enacted?

By that I mean that legislation enacted during this tax year cannot go back further than the last tax year. So if HM want to close a loophole now, provided they do it before 6th April 2010 (ie tax year 2009-10), then it can affect tax due in tax year 2008-9 BUT NO EARLIER.

At the moment there does not seem to be any pressure on HMCR to act promptly. That's wrong and unneccessary and removes certainty for taxpayers. HMCR are notified about all tax schemes as soon as they are marketed. Legislation need not wait for a lengthy legal process: if HMCR can convince the government to enact it, then they should get on with it.

At least with this proposal, Members of Parliament are offered a reasonable alternative that does not tie their hands in the future but forces HMCR to move quickly and limits the uncertainty and the impact on taxpayers. It also highlights how wrong it is to backdate a change seven years.

What do we think?

[ASB]

and no doubt our government will pledge money they havent got to give, in support of Greece which will mean HMRC need to introduce even more draconian retrospective tax measures...

Off topic, but I would encourage you to do a bit of research on Greece's tax system. Is it entirely coincidental than one of the reasons they are currently (and have been for a long time) in such a mess because they have an alarming tendency to change the rules with effect from a couple of years ago? Is this perhaps one of the reasons apparent corruption within it's collection system are so rife?

Here's a sort of related one:-
http://www.maknews.com/html/articles..._v_greece.html

There is also some interesting things on taxation of property transferred to family members which is being attempted to be changed retrospectively. A starter:-
http://www.athensnews.gr/articles/13.../01/2010/24788

[BolshieBastard]

Both QDOS and Abbey are pretty certain they will honour any claims made. AFAIK there haven't been any to date...

Pretty certain means there a fair degree of doubt. And since they havent been put to the test yet of paying out, I dont see how anyone can reasonably argue the case for it.

In other words, its a piss and hope. So much for your 'certainty.'

[SantaClaus]

Off topic, but I would encourage you to do a bit of research on Greece's tax system. Is it entirely coincidental than one of the reasons they are currently (and have been for a long time) in such a mess because they have an alarming tendency to change the rules with effect from a couple of years ago? Is this perhaps one of the reasons apparent corruption within it's collection system are so rife?

Here's a sort of related one:-
http://www.maknews.com/html/articles..._v_greece.html

There is also some interesting things on taxation of property transferred to family members which is being attempted to be changed retrospectively. A starter:-
http://www.athensnews.gr/articles/13.../01/2010/24788

Apparently, Greece employ 1 million people to work for the state, they get above average pay rises and it is against the constitution to fire them. That's why they are in such a mess.

Sound familar?

[ASB]

Apparently, Greece employ 1 million people to work for the state, they get above average pay rises and it is against the constitution to fire them. That's why they are in such a mess.

Sound familar?

Our figures are in the order of 6 million public, 24 million private.

Greek population is about 12 mln against our 62 mln. To catch up with us they need about 1.2 mln public sector (obviously I completely discount the therory that we should have about 5 mln less).

[Corrian]

Section 58 / Stephen Timms

Hi Guys
I’m a newbie to the forum and this is my first post. I’ve been on the MTM tax scheme since 2001 so I’ve a great deal of interest in what is being said on here and I lot to catch up on. Firstly can anybody tell me what Stephen Timms said or proposed in parliament when section 58 was past? Are there minutes on what he said?

[malvolio]

Insurance products weren't around back in 2001.

Yes they were. And they worked

Many accountants at the time, including mine, were pushing people to just accept IR35.

Mine wasn't, nor were a lot of people's.

In this atmosphere, the MP scheme did

n't seem like such a bad idea.

Not saying it didn't. Perhaps not the best option, that's all: I looked at it and some thers, and stuck with my UK LtdCo. Others didn't. Doesn;t make either one of us right.

Not even sure why you are posting on here. This forum is to help people who have been affected by the retrospective tax.

If you don't understand the opposing views and what it is you are up against, you won't be properly prepared and you won't win anything. If you don't recognise help when it's offered, that's your problem, but don't bitch about those trying to offer it. The case against retrospection will eventually hinge on how supportable the MP scheme was.

As for "Why am I here", I bailed out when people stuck their fingers in their ears and stopped listening. Hwever eeverything I said might happen has happened. Go figure.

[poppy01]

Yes they were. And they worked

As for "Why am I here", I bailed out when people stuck their fingers in their ears and stopped listening. Hwever eeverything I said might happen has happened. Go figure.

we've had our reality check, thanks, and it wasnt provided by you. we know, at least I know, we're screwed now, and anyone else using any mechanism that isnt PAYE should also be looking over their shoulder, including people who use ltd's and think theyr'e 'safe'. The written law now stands for nothing, and anything is on the table as far as hmrc are concerned.

[malvolio]

Which only shows you still don't understand the whole picture. Heigh ho...

[Toocan]

As for "Why am I here", I bailed out when people stuck their fingers in their ears and stopped listening. Hwever eeverything I said might happen has happened. Go figure.

Not many people can honestly make that claim. What do you think will happen next? I mean, how do you think events will play out?