Originally posted by Ninja
View Post
Done
"I am writing to you on the eve of your Treasury Select Committee meeting to discuss whether it is ‘fair’ to tax Barclays Capital retrospectively on their recent tax avoidance scheme. I understand that the time period in question would back date the tax to having been effective from December 2011; some 3 months or so.
I agree that the passing of retrospective laws (ex post facto) does have its place, provided that legislators use extreme caution and due diligence. In many countries (many of which are in the EU), ex post facto law is unconstitutional, and its use elsewhere is very rare.
However may I draw your attention to the case of Budget Note 66, Clause 55 which was enacted as part of the Finance Act (2008) where a DTA tax avoidance scheme was closed with retrospective effect dating back several years. This legislation is both extreme and severe; it being described by Chartered Institute of Taxation as ‘‘extreme and unjustified’’; the Law Society believed it was ‘‘wrong in principle’’; and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales warned, ‘‘it sends out a very damaging signal about the stability of the UK tax system’’. In addition no prior impact assessment was conducted by JCHR as to its affect upon taxpayers. It is interesting to note that in Finance Act 2009 a similar tax avoidance scheme - used by bankers - was closed; and it took effect prospectively not retrospectively.
Up to 3,000 independent contractors, mainly in IT, are affected by this change of law, and the majority face bankruptcy because of it. Some of those affected have specialised in financial services, and hence risk being denied access to future employment. I am a family man in my early nn’s, having worked continuously since leaving school at the age of 16. HMRC are demanding £x+, and to add insult to injury there is interest to pay! This is interest on outstanding tax which only became taxable because of retrospective legislation. It is outrageous! My finances will never recover from this.
If you are still of the opinion that retrospective legislation is appropriate and fair for those whom you believe have abused the system, then what were your thoughts when Sir Thomas Legg recommended retrospectively changing the rules governing MP’s expenses. Many of your colleagues thought retrospective changes would be unfair, even though acknowledged widespread abuse had taken place.
I know that the terms of reference for this particular select committee inhibit debating BN66 specifically; however I urge you and your colleagues to consider our plight, and remove the threat of financial ruin from our families. As a group we strongly believe that we have been extremely harshly and disproportionately dealt with, and our resolve to right this gross injustice is hardening. For all of this time we have waited patiently and quietly, putting our faith in British justice only for our hopes to be dashed. If parliamentarians continue to ignore our plight then our campaign will have to become more vocal and more public. After all, if we are ruined then we will have nothing more to lose and be well-motivated to continue the fight."
regards
Ninja
"I am writing to you on the eve of your Treasury Select Committee meeting to discuss whether it is ‘fair’ to tax Barclays Capital retrospectively on their recent tax avoidance scheme. I understand that the time period in question would back date the tax to having been effective from December 2011; some 3 months or so.
I agree that the passing of retrospective laws (ex post facto) does have its place, provided that legislators use extreme caution and due diligence. In many countries (many of which are in the EU), ex post facto law is unconstitutional, and its use elsewhere is very rare.
However may I draw your attention to the case of Budget Note 66, Clause 55 which was enacted as part of the Finance Act (2008) where a DTA tax avoidance scheme was closed with retrospective effect dating back several years. This legislation is both extreme and severe; it being described by Chartered Institute of Taxation as ‘‘extreme and unjustified’’; the Law Society believed it was ‘‘wrong in principle’’; and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales warned, ‘‘it sends out a very damaging signal about the stability of the UK tax system’’. In addition no prior impact assessment was conducted by JCHR as to its affect upon taxpayers. It is interesting to note that in Finance Act 2009 a similar tax avoidance scheme - used by bankers - was closed; and it took effect prospectively not retrospectively.
Up to 3,000 independent contractors, mainly in IT, are affected by this change of law, and the majority face bankruptcy because of it. Some of those affected have specialised in financial services, and hence risk being denied access to future employment. I am a family man in my early nn’s, having worked continuously since leaving school at the age of 16. HMRC are demanding £x+, and to add insult to injury there is interest to pay! This is interest on outstanding tax which only became taxable because of retrospective legislation. It is outrageous! My finances will never recover from this.
If you are still of the opinion that retrospective legislation is appropriate and fair for those whom you believe have abused the system, then what were your thoughts when Sir Thomas Legg recommended retrospectively changing the rules governing MP’s expenses. Many of your colleagues thought retrospective changes would be unfair, even though acknowledged widespread abuse had taken place.
I know that the terms of reference for this particular select committee inhibit debating BN66 specifically; however I urge you and your colleagues to consider our plight, and remove the threat of financial ruin from our families. As a group we strongly believe that we have been extremely harshly and disproportionately dealt with, and our resolve to right this gross injustice is hardening. For all of this time we have waited patiently and quietly, putting our faith in British justice only for our hopes to be dashed. If parliamentarians continue to ignore our plight then our campaign will have to become more vocal and more public. After all, if we are ruined then we will have nothing more to lose and be well-motivated to continue the fight."
regards
Ninja
Comment