BN66 - JR Judgement Day

[SantaClaus]

dont get me wrong when I say this, I actually think we will eventually win and would never want to pay those bunch of terrorists. However nothing would give me greater pleasure, if I did end up having to pay than being able to phone them up the minute I get a demand and saying "do you take debit card?"....That would stop their enjoyment of sending their threatening letters, as unfortunately I actually feel they do get pleasure from it they seem sadistic.

The only time I have ever spoken to them was once when I paid my PAYE late, I had always paid on time and just forgot one month. What do you think their attitude was, friendly or accusatory like I was purposely trying to fiddle the system by not paying? their attitude sucks, and I suspect its a trickle down from the top of the pile...

It's also the general attitude of the government of this country.
Our elected leaders are there to serve us. Unfortunately they are under the impression that it's the other way around.

[Emigre]

But many are trying to make comparisons by implying that doctors are being offered a better deal, which simply isn't the case.

The real point about these amnesties is that someone who has acted illegally by hiding and not declaring their true income is being treated only 10% of the tax due differently to us who at all times believed we were within the then existing law and in any event acted with absolute transparency.

The difference between legal (tax avoidance) and illegal (tax evasion) appears to be just 10% of the additional tax due. It seems to send a clear message that if you fail to tell them what you have done they will not know enough to pass another retrospective tax. If on the other hand you tell them everything they pass a new clarification and tax you anyway.

I'm in no way advocating that anyone breaks the law, but it would be good to have one of the many HMRC stooges explain and justify this situation.

[Zippy]

I am not currently affected by this so feel free to ignore/flame me, but I think the way forward is to broaden the audience. Whether or not this scheme was "taking the piss" is irrelevant. The retrospective application of currently understood laws is very worrying and I'd try to move the argument to other areas in which this principle could be applied.
IANAL or a tax inspector.

[Buzby]

Write to your mp

thanks Santa for the template, just sent my letter to mp:

You may recall I have written to you on several occasions regarding the retrospective effect of Section 58 of the 2008 Finance Bill, which seeks to close a tax avoidance loophole, but unfairly punishes myself and 3000 other people for tax planning that was perfectly legitimate at the time.
The effect will be to claim back tax + interest for the past 8 years which in my case amounts to approximately £200,000.

I can confirm to you that a judgement was handed down in the High Court in favour of the Inland Revenue and thus myself and 3000 other families will shortly be facing bankruptcy.

Originally, you wrote to me with a reply from Stephen Timms who claimed HMRC were “clarifying” existing legislation and not using retrospection. This was his justification to parliament for allowing the 2008 Finance Bill to receive Queen’s assent. In fact parliament was misled by Timms and HMRC, as the majority of MPs who voted for this bill did so without knowing they were voting for a retrospective tax change. Also, many people I know have had replies from their MPs stating they did not know so many people would be so badly affected by this legislation.

I was somewhat surprised to read in the Judicial Review judgement that Mr Justice Kenneth Parker thought that the use of retrospection was allowed in this case because he deemed it to be “proportionate”. I cannot understand how bankrupting 3000 families can be considered proportionate and justify applying a tax change retrospectively.

Consequently I was shocked and appalled to read in the same week that the Supreme Court had decided the Government was wrong to freeze the bank accounts of five suspected terrorists (newspaper article enclosed) and they have been allowed to keep the money.

However much you disagree with the tax avoidance scheme I used, I would have been better off being a terrorist as I would have received much fairer treatment from the courts.

Just to stick the knife in further, I then read an article that MPs would not have to pay back their expenses retrospectively. So I guess it’s one rule for us ordinary citizens and another rule for our leaders.

The case will now be appealed and eventually find it’s way to the Supreme Court and finally Strasbourg. Price Waterhouse Coopers also have a Judicial Review pending and KPMG will be going straight to the European Court of Human Rights. However, HMRC have shown they can be ruthless in the past and I await a call from bailiffs and letters of demand even though the case is being appealed.

The use of retrospective taxation is extremely uncompetitive for the UK, as businesses and individuals no longer face certainty of their tax position as they once did.

The govt. can no longer hide behind the lie that they are “clarifying” an existing law. What they have done is retrospectively change a law and that creates a precedent and gives them license to use retrospection on a whim and whenever they please. No business in their right mind will operate out of the UK with this level of uncertainty. As you no doubt know, many businesses are already leaving for friendlier tax regimes.

As the “little man” in this cat and mouse game between the government and tax advisors, I feel I have been extremely unfairly treated.

I would hope that you would raise this matter in Parliament. The 2008 Finance Bill should never have been allowed to be voted through and probably wouldn’t if it had been known that it’s intent was retrospective legislation rather than a “clarification”. If there is such a mechanism to do so, the bill should be put to a re-vote.

I really despair of what is happening in this country to our freedoms and civil liberties. They are being taken away one by one.

My family, including my 2 young children now face certain bankruptcy and losing our home.

find your local mp here : http://www.writetothem.com/

best use snail mail rather than email I have found.

[KiwiGuy]

Morning All

Hey All,

ive managed to calm down now, and ready to move to the next stages of the fight, im looking forward to the outcome of the others cases, good or bad the more information the better. It funny talking to people about the case, 99% of people although no entirely agreeing witht the route we took with our tax planning, totally agree with the fact Retrospective tax isnt right.

Hey BBC Lurkers, how about you write a article on how this Govt is now set a standard for Retrospective tax, or the fact that although only 100 people did that survey, if you go by Sampling Statistics, the number of people actually going bankrupt by this change is greater, id imagine a more shocking title for any news paper "HMRC Bankrupts 700 families", also, have a think about the £300 million HMRC quoted, take look at the "Sample" survey and work out how much will actually be taken from this, my guess would actually be close to £30-50 million, then compare it to how much they spent on "NHS" consultants, or even MP's travel allowances for the year, then again keep in your mind they are distroying 2500 people (again thats JUST montpelier), the total Taxible income that could be gained from NOT bankrupting 700 families who now wouldnt be allowed to start up a LTD company or work in most industries, so those families would then have to go on benifits costing the Govt even more. This would be an article that would be a good read, and would put a true perspective on how wrong this change is.

peace brother

[Emigre]

I am not currently affected by this so feel free to ignore/flame me, but I think the way forward is to broaden the audience. Whether or not this scheme was "taking the piss" is irrelevant. The retrospective application of currently understood laws is very worrying and I'd try to move the argument to other areas in which this principle could be applied.
IANAL or a tax inspector.

You are quite right. In reality Justice Parker has done us a favour with his judgement which gives us full entitlement to broaden the audience. This is now an attack on the entire tax planning industry, some of whom have very deep pockets. It is also a potential attack on every taxpayer. If they are allowed to apply retrospectivity once, they will have precedent to support any number of raids. Oh dear, we've got a bit of budget deficit at the moment, lets backdate a 5% increase in the basic rate to 1987.

Taxation in this country has become a lottery - it could be you next. And because its now a lottery the queue for the exit is lengthening.

[ROBIN REDBREAST]

Worrying times...

I'm affected by this by a considerable 6 figure sum. I'm appalled and sickened by this. The only closure notcie I ever received was in 2008, so prior to this I was led to beleive by the law at the time (through advice from MP) that our tax planning arrangement was acceptable.

I can just about muster up enough to pay, though this may involve house sale and moving kids to a new school, not a greatstart to their life. I propose if the unthinkable happens in 1, 2 or 5 years time, however long it takes, that we all pay in £1 coins.....

[KiwiGuy]

I'm affected by this by a considerable 6 figure sum. I'm appalled and sickened by this. The only closure notcie I ever received was in 2008, so prior to this I was led to beleive by the law at the time (through advice from MP) that our tax planning arrangement was acceptable.

I can just about muster up enough to pay, though this may involve house sale and moving kids to a new school, not a greatstart to their life. I propose if the unthinkable happens in 1, 2 or 5 years time, however long it takes, that we all pay in £1 coins.....

"(through advice from MP) " i bet that MP is now hiding in a corner in his 2nd home now, yes keep your chin up, the advice we recieved was correct (at the time), its the govt thats changing the goal posts and thus are wrong

[lilo]

What's the matter with the council

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8490074.stm

Surely they can use retrospection to 'clarify' what they meant.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Role of the forum?

What do people feel the role of this forum should be going forward?

Whilst the JR was a blow to morale, I think all of us who attended were reassured that Montpelier has hired an excellent legal team. Is it now time to just let them get on with it?

The following timelines in the Arctic Systems case give us an indication of how long our case could take to reach a conclusion. Our's could take even longer because it could end up in Europe and there are other parties challenging the legislation (PwC, KPMG).

http://www.accountancyage.com/accoun...ms-geoff-diana

Obviously we are all hoping for the best, but this does at least give us time to plan for the worst.

Personally, I am not sure how much more we as a group can do to influence the outcome. And there is even a risk that our actions could be counter-productive.

Where I do see a need for action is in countering any attempts by HMRC to bully us or try and pick us off one by one.

One of the specific duties of Members of Parliament is to take up complaints against HMRC on behalf of their constituents. We should not hesitate to involve MPs if HMRC try anything underhand while our case is still under appeal.

I can understand some people's desire for closure but my understanding is if you settle now it will be final and irrevocable. There will be no redress if we ultimately win the case. IMHO, this is not a decision to be taken lightly. I think it is highly unlikely that you would receive much in the way of
concessions now that HMRC have the upper hand.

Thoughts?