BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[CanPayButWouldRatherNot]

.
Section 58 Finance Act 2008

1. Targeted a tax planning scheme which had been fully disclosed every year through self-assessment tax returns since 2001.
2. Retrospective tax (plus up to 50% interest) going back 7 years.
3. HMRC knew about it right from the start; they issued guidance to tax offices in July 2002 (Inland Revenue Technical Exchange 63).
4. 3000 people affected.
5. Majority unable to pay, fearing bankruptcy & losing their homes.
6. After a 3-year legal challenge, courts have ruled that it does not breach human rights; HMRC now preparing to issue retrospective tax demands.
7. HMRC planned to list 4 test cases before the Tax Courts in early 2006 and asked Scheme users to be bound by the outcome. We agreed.
8. The 4 test cases were never heard of again.
9. HMRC changed its view on the scheme in Autumn 2007, claiming that it was caught by legislation from 1987.
10. Instead of testing their new view in court, HMRC recommended that the Government legislate with retrospective effect
11. HMRC asserted that Section 58 merely clarified the 1987 legislation which itself was retrospective
12. This was a contrived deception.
13. "1987" only prevented people making windfall tax relief claims after a taxpayer (Maurice Padmore) won a court case against the Inland Revenue. The then Conservative government stated that there was a risk that the Exchequer would have to pay out £100M in windfall claims.
14. "1987" did not retrospectively tax anyone; it did not raise a single penny in revenue.
15. Therefore, by a sleight of hand "clarification", a non-tax raising measure from 1987 was transformed into a fully retrospective tax in 2008. HMRC justification was that there was a risk to the Exchequer of £200M. There was no risk since, unlike 1987, no monies could flow out of the public purse.
16. Conservative and LibDem MPs tabled an amendment to remove the retrospective element but it was defeated by the Labour majority.
17. We are now calling on the Coalition Government to amend Section 58 so that it complies with the "Rees Rules" and only takes effect from the date the measure was first announced - Budget Note 66 on 12th March 2008.

excellent ... need a clear one pager to go to my mp ... recess means there are some surgeries

[moira under the stairs]

I hear China is quite nice this time of year.

Yep they already have all the data !!

[wertert]

Hi All.

I must be thick but I have alot of trouble getting my head round all the various arguments on the table about BN66. ( retrospection aside!) I've tried drafting a letter to my MP a few times and ended up binning it !

This is him BTW - Jacob Rees-Mogg

Would anyone be willing to give me a list of points that should be included in my letter to my MP ? I just want to make sure that I give a fair argument and not come across like a desperate/ bitter nut case. Please PM me if you would prefer.

Many thanks to DR and TalkingCheese. I have send a letter and requested a face to face. I have passed a draft letter onto my three colleagues who assure me they will be sending their own letters asap. Hopefully that 4 more letters and 4 more MPs contacted.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Many thanks to DR and TalkingCheese. I have send a letter and requested a face to face. I have passed a draft letter onto my three colleagues who assure me they will be sending their own letters asap. Hopefully that 4 more letters and 4 more MPs contacted.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

What's the point? It won't make any difference.

I also have a few mates who are not intending to write. They are very much in the -whats-the-point-it'll-make-no-difference camp. ( lazy ).

It is perfectly understandable that some people feel like this.

We may call it defeatest. They will probably say they're just being realistic.

Hopefully what's coming down the line may persuade them that it's not a waste of time.

[travellingknob]

It is perfectly understandable that some people feel like this.

We may call it defeatest. They will probably say they're just being realistic.

Hopefully what's coming down the line may persuade them that it's not a waste of time.

I assume it will involve funding. If so, I hope they see fit to contribute as well.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I assume it will involve funding. If so, I hope they see fit to contribute as well.

Some may say "why should I pay when I've already paid fees to the scheme promoter".

But we're only talking a few hundred quid.

What's that compared to a liability running into many tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds? For many people, it will be less than 1 month's interest to HMRC.

At the end of the day though, everyone must decide for themselves.

[GottaBeOptimistic]

.
Section 58 Finance Act 2008

1. Targeted a tax planning scheme which had been fully disclosed every year through self-assessment tax returns since 2001.
2. Retrospective tax (plus up to 50% interest) going back 7 years.
3. HMRC knew about it right from the start; they issued guidance to tax offices in July 2002 (Inland Revenue Technical Exchange 63).
4. 3000 people affected.
5. Majority unable to pay, fearing bankruptcy & losing their homes.
6. After a 3-year legal challenge, courts have ruled that it does not breach human rights; HMRC now preparing to issue retrospective tax demands.
7. HMRC planned to list 4 test cases before the Tax Courts in early 2006 and asked Scheme users to be bound by the outcome. We agreed.
8. The 4 test cases were never heard of again.
9. HMRC changed its view on the scheme in Autumn 2007, claiming that it was caught by legislation from 1987.
10. Instead of testing their new view in court, HMRC recommended that the Government legislate with retrospective effect
11. HMRC asserted that Section 58 merely clarified the 1987 legislation which itself was retrospective
12. This was a contrived deception.
13. "1987" only prevented people making windfall tax relief claims after a taxpayer (Maurice Padmore) won a court case against the Inland Revenue. The then Conservative government stated that there was a risk that the Exchequer would have to pay out £100M in windfall claims.
14. "1987" did not retrospectively tax anyone; it did not raise a single penny in revenue.
15. Therefore, by a sleight of hand "clarification", a non-tax raising measure from 1987 was transformed into a fully retrospective tax in 2008. HMRC justification was that there was a risk to the Exchequer of £200M. There was no risk since, unlike 1987, no monies could flow out of the public purse.
16. Conservative and LibDem MPs tabled an amendment to remove the retrospective element but it was defeated by the Labour majority.
17. We are now calling on the Coalition Government to amend Section 58 so that it complies with the "Rees Rules" and only takes effect from the date the measure was first announced - Budget Note 66 on 12th March 2008.

Excellent job. Everybody - use this as a guide if you are not clear on all the details. Also, GO AND SEE YOUR MP. My earlier comments below......

For me, I felt much better for taking time to see my MP. I honesly believe that for your MP to see you in person makes the whole situation much more "real" and tangible. I recommend that all other lurkers and posters on this site support and see their local MP. I feel there is momentum and the more we have the more weight our story will carry.

So to all those who haven't done so yet, get off your arses, write a letter and let your MP know what's going on. Forget the pub, forget the football, this is far more important, c'mon just get on with it...

[BolshieBastard]

Any lurkers who may think bankruptcy is an option, may want to take a minute to read this latest court ruling.

Write to your MP now! Sitting on your arse isnt an option.

Thank you

Creditors are entitled to a bankrupt person's pension, court says - Telegraph

Until now, a bankrupt person’s private pension has generally been considered out of reach to any creditor looking to recoup money.

However following a High Court judgment yesterday, a bankrupt person could now be forced to draw their pension and hand it over to creditors.

The case in question involved Leicester businessman Michael Williamson, 59, who owes around £1.25 million to Martin Shepherd, a former business partner.

The court ruled that because Mr Williamson is over 55 – the age at which he can start drawing down his pension – he is entitled to payment from his pension scheme. This money should be considered as income and therefore should be used to pay back Mr Shepherd and other creditors, the court said.

The decision could allow creditors to go after pension payments of the 11,000 people over 55 who declare themselves bankrupt every year.
Related Articles

Damon Watt, a partner at law firm EMW who represented Mr Williamson, said: “Up until now those who had reached retirement age were perceived to have some limited protection over their pension. This decision strips away that protection.”

Anne-Marie Winton, a partner at law firm Nabarro, told Pensions Week: “Pensions will no longer be seen as a safe hiding place for money people don’t want anyone else to touch. In some ways pension income is no different to any other form of income that creditors can take – and it sounds like the court is chipping away at the law on this.”

Mr Williamson, who ceased being bankrupt last November, was granted permission to appeal the decision.

[GottaBeOptimistic]

WHS. Face to face meetings are proving far more effective.

And by the way, please keep sending me your feedback forms.
Wikisend: free file sharing service

Please be assured that this will remain strictly confidential. The information is merely to determine where we are getting support.

DR - I will send you my feedback tomorrow. Can you confirm how many have given you feedback already so we can gauge the level of MP communication ?