Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Obviously they will have to pay their dues retrospectively [NOT]!
Ok... lets open this massive VAT of worms... go back and make retrospective cases against MP's expenses, check on all MP's and public servants who use some kind of avoidance scheme.... including the AR$ES @ HMRC... whats good for the goose...etc. lets really show what this Country is really like doing business in it. Retrospective law you stupid stupid narrow minded people !!!.
So s58 isn't even a clarification of legislation, it's a clarification of HMRC's 2008 view of what might have been the intention of 1987 legislation (but, in fact, wasn't).
This is so many steps removed from reality that it's impossible to know where to begin.
Originally posted by Disgusted of CoventryView Post
Would it help to point out that the Suo Moto Deal couldn't have been more than 1 or 2 years retrospection?
If this deal were to be faithfully re-applied, might that have to be a factor?
It could still be worth writing to your local MP.
No worries on that score, I've already fired off letters to my MP, the TSC, Gauke, and many others - plus I've been getting friends and family to do the same!! I can only hope others here have enlisted the help of friends and family also as we seriously need to increase the visibility of our plight!
Originally posted by Disgusted of CoventryView Post
I just can't get my head around this.
So s58 isn't even a clarification of legislation, it's a clarification of HMRC's 2008 view of what might have been the intention of 1987 legislation (but, in fact, wasn't).
This is so many steps removed from reality that it's impossible to know where to begin.
The problem is s58 is now the law.
The courts don't care how it came to pass, and they have ruled that it doesn't conflict with any EU conventions or treaties.
Anybody that spent all the money was foolish. We did know we were entering into something that was not 100% guarenteed. And anybody who has not been saving for the last 4 years is equally as foolish.
What we have learnt is that the government can do what they want, when they want and there isn't a bloody thing we can do about it. The courts won't even hear our case.
Wow, that is naive beyond belief!!
How can you possibly say that when you have no insight into the situation others find themselves in???
I certainly don’t profess to know anything about your circumstances so why you think you’re able to comment on that of others here and call them foolish is beyond me!
I for one invested the money wisely, then 9/11 happened and a business which cost me close to $1M to set up was wiped out leaving me with losses I have never been able to recover from – I haven’t even been able to afford pension contributions since! To make matters worse, having worked damn hard almost every day for seven years (only able to afford our first post 9/11 family vacation in 2007) we were finally starting to recover from the mountain of debt when the HMRC time machine kicked us in the guts, the markets crashed, rates fell through the floor and jobs were scarce.
So you tell me, when putting food on the table for the last 11 years has been a struggle what was I supposed to save with??
You should try walking in someone elses shoes for a while, maybe then you’ll learn something about the situation of others – if you’re stressed because you’ve been subjected to a huge debt since 2008 then you should try living with one since 2001 only to go back to the starting point in 2008!!! And before you start with the “I have it hard too, my husband is ill, blah, blah, blah”, been there, done that, and several times over!!!
Originally posted by Disgusted of CoventryView Post
I just can't get my head around this.
So s58 isn't even a clarification of legislation, it's a clarification of HMRC's 2008 view of what might have been the intention of 1987 legislation (but, in fact, wasn't).
This is so many steps removed from reality that it's impossible to know where to begin.
Well, if you want to really get angry then have a look at these direct quotes. BTW ITTOIA 2005 is one of 2 legislative reasons why the scheme apparently fails:
ITTOIA 2005 – Annex 1 Change 145
This makes it clear that:
It was intended, in the case of income tax, that the 1987 legislation should do no more than remove the exemption claimed in the Padmore case.
And:
Section 858(2) of this Act makes it clear that it is only the partner’s chargeability to tax that is preserved, overriding any provision to the contrary in a double taxation treaty. No other effect of the treaty is overridden.
So nowt about Padmore 1987 doing anything beyond Padmore. Not a word about any other version of such a scheme being dealt with. But surely as the HMRC witness snippet states, Parliament intended the legislation to catch other similar schemes? Well, check this direct quote from one Tony Blair from the Padmore debate in 1987:
"Therefore, Clause 62 is before us and reverses the decision in Padmore. It ensures that the united Kingdom resident partner of a Jersey resident partnership is no longer exempt".
But just in case there is scope for wider application, Norman Lamont said:
"As the professional press have pointed out, leaving the clause unammended would lead to loopholes that would be much exploited. However I appreciate that that is not the Committees main concern."
So, nope, nothing to indicate anything wider in purpose. In fact in the paragraph before this extract, Lamont makes it very clear to whom the new legislation applied:
"Therefore, during that period a large number of admittedley restricted class of person - partners in foreign partnerships - have accepted the position and paid tax accordingly."
Doesn't sound like having some wider intent to me.
If you read the full Inland Revenue Briefing Notes for the 1987 legislation which interestingly were faxed to an HMRC officer on 5th November 2007 (4 days after an informal HMRC meeting about the Scheme) faxed from HMRC's Solicitors Office - Legal and Governance Room LG76 100 Parliament Street, you'll see that the text has been virtually transplanted into the BN66 Briefing Notes. Interestingly, the officer who requested this faxed content is listed as a contact for queries in the BN66 Briefing Notes which were published a couple of months after the fax was received. I know it's not relevant, but the fax machine in room LG76 had a date stamp on the fax sent of 12th Feb 1996! Even HMRC's fax machines can time travel...
Oh, I forgot to mention. Whilst the text has been transplanted, key words have been left out or changed and in doing so, gives rise to a different interpretation. I've made it a hobby (sad I know) of comparing the text from HMRC documents in 2007 / 2008 and that from 1987. You could not find anything more juxtaposed!
We know HMRC read this thread, so may I suggest you check your fax machine in said room and make sure the date is correct? Oh, and could you tell me who in HMRC underlined the word "unwary" in the Hansard photocopy where someone had also written "Distinguish IoM Partnership & Trust" right next to the underline? It's the photocopy of the 1987 Parliamentary debate on this which has been para-phrased in BN66 to give that legislation a totally new and different meaning, sorry, "clarification". Feeling a little uncomfortable?
Comment