• 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!

BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by GottaBeOptimistic View Post
    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 ?
    35 so far but I think only a minority are providing feedback.

    Don't worry about the numbers.

    I'm expecting this to ramp up in a couple of weeks time.

    Comment


      Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View Post
      35 so far but I think only a minority are providing feedback.

      Don't worry about the numbers.

      I'm expecting this to ramp up in a couple of weeks time.
      Get off my glasses... Lol

      Comment


        I am in...

        Letter Sent to MP today - await response with baited breath :-)

        Comment


          Time for Fairness without Time Machines

          All,

          It has been noted that many communications from MP's and not least David Gauke seem to imply some resistance to "repeal" or "amendment" of Section 58. Naturally, asking Parliament to make changes to any law requires serious consideration, so some 'push back' can be assumed. However, let us remember that when we engage with our MP's not least in person on a matter so personal and emotive as this and not lacking some trepedation for those who may have only done so on this matter for the first time that we must be 100% clear what we are asking for.

          1. We are asking for the retrospective element of Section 58 FA 2008 to be amended in accordance with the Parliamentary Rees-Rules so that it has effect from the date of its announcement -12th March 2008.

          2. We are asking for the grounds of this consideration to include the position of the then Opposition Parties when debating this Clause in the 2008 Finance Bill.

          3. We are asking the amendment so as to allow Natural Justice to be applied so that whilst the abhorrant nature of retrospective legislation is negated, such an amendment will allow:
          3.a Those affected to challenge the matter with HMRC in the Tax Courts as was proposed to be the case before Section 58 was enacted as HMRC intended via the previous 4 test cases.
          3.b So that with the law as it stood prior to Section 58, the tax payer has their rightful day in court to be judged on the law as it was when the transaction was carried out.
          3.c To once and for all, via the Tax Courts, allow Natural Justice and the rule of law as it stood to determine whether the symbolic scales of justice - to rule whether it is the taxpayer or HMRC who are in the right on this matter.

          So, in short, make it clear if not already done to your MP or indeed others with whom we have complaint that we are not asking to be excused any liability merely on the basis of abhorrant legislation, nor indeed do we expect Parliament simply to move without resistance on such matters. Our claim and beef is with HMRC and we believe we have the wind in our favour:

          We are asking to go before the Tax Courts with the law as it stood prior to Section S58 so that the Tax Courts can rule on the basis of tax law as it stood and that such a fair trial can only occur if the retrospective element of S58 is amended back to 12th March 2008.

          If you ask why this will be reasonable give the CoA has already ruled, consider this. The Tax Courts cannot entertain the opinions or rulings on Human Rights grounds in their considerations but they can rule on the basis of the law as it stands. But we want their considerations to be allowed on the basis of the law as it stood. After all, if HMRC believed the Scheme never worked, then let them prove that point in a Tax Court. Amending Section 58 allows for such a fight on a "fair" and "level" playing field. "Fair share" does not start and end with sound bites from HMRC. We too can expect this with a share of legal expectation.
          Nothing to fear? Nothing to hide. We were transparent.
          Time for Fairness without Time Machines.
          Last edited by Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing; 5 April 2012, 09:40.

          Comment


            MP visit

            Originally posted by Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing View Post
            All,

            It has been noted that many communications from MP's and not least David Gauke seem to imply some resistance to "repeal" or "amendment" of Section 58. Naturally, asking Parliament to make changes to any law requires serious consideration, so some 'push back' can be assumed. However, let us remember that when we engage with our MP's not least in person on a matter so personal and emotive as this and not lacking some trepedation for those who may have only done so on this matter for the first time that we must be 100% clear what we are asking for.

            1. We are asking for the retrospective element of Section 58 FA 2008 to be amended in accordance with the Parliamentary Rees-Rules so that it has effect from the date of its announcement -12th March 2008.

            2. We are asking for the grounds of this consideration to include the position of the then Opposition Parties when debating this Clause in the 2008 Finance Bill.

            3. We are asking the amendment so as to allow Natural Justice to be applied so that whilst the abhorrant nature of retrospective legislation is negated, such an amendment will allow:
            3.a Those affected to challenge the matter with HMRC in the Tax Courts as was proposed to be the case before Section 58 was enacted as HMRC intended via the previous 4 test cases.
            3.b So that with the law as it stood prior to Section 58, the tax payer has their rightful day in court to be judged on the law as it was when the transaction was carried out.
            3.c To once and for all, via the Tax Courts, allow Natural Justice and the rule of law as it stood to determine whether the symbolic scales of justice - to rule whether it is the taxpayer or HMRC who are in the right on this matter.

            So, in short, make it clear if not already done to your MP or indeed others with whom we have complaint that we are not asking to be excused any liability merely on the basis of abhorrant legislation, nor indeed do we expect Parliament simply to move without resistance on such matters. Our claim and beef is with HMRC and we believe we have the wind in our favour:

            We are asking to go before the Tax Courts with the law as it stood prior to Section S58 so that the Tax Courts can rule on the basis of tax law as it stood and that such a fair trail can only occur if the retrospective element of S58 is amended back to 12th March 2008.

            If you ask why this will be reasonable give the CoA has already ruled, consider this. The Tax Courts cannot entertain the opinions or rulings on Human Rights grounds in their considerations but they can rule on the basis of the law as it stands. But we want their considerations to be allowed on the basis of the law as it stood. After all, if HMRC believed the Scheme never worked, then let them prove that point in a Tax Court. Amending Section 58 allows for such a fight on a "fair" and "level" playing field. "Fair share" does not start and end with sound bites from HMRC. We too can expect this with a share of legal expectation.
            Nothing to fear? Nothing to hide. We were transparent.
            Time for Fairness without Time Machines.
            Brllliant sum up TSBT! I can see this actually working...

            Letters already sent to Bob Neill MP (Con), time for the familly to pay him a visit.

            Comment


              Important point for what you say to MP's

              I know TDNHTBT has already commented on this critically important issue, but may I say the same thing, using different words:

              1. We need to explain to our MP's that the consequences of a S58 amendment are NOT that we are simply "off the hook". Far from it.
              2. Any amendment to S58 would STILL necessitate us going to the tax courts (which is absolutely fine), and then the tax courts will decide our fate. The law applied by the tax court judges would be pre 2008 law (on the basis that s58 was amended)

              Its very essential that you do not lead your MPs to believe that we are simply asking to be let off. Thats NOT the case. We are purely interested in amending s58 because it was grossly unfair and based on very shaky "evidence" and non-existent foundations and no due diligence was conducted by those involved at the time, and the Rees Rules were completely ignored etc etc

              Once that is done, we are happy to have our day in the tax courts. If we lose, then we pay. If we win, we dont pay.

              Can I finally clarify that the above is not opinion. Its fact. Amending s58 doesn't let us off the hook. Only a tax court could then achieve the ultimate goal.
              Last edited by Dieselpower; 5 April 2012, 07:17.
              Join the campaign at
              http://notoretrotax.org.uk

              Comment


                New bullet points reflecting the above

                .
                Section 58 Finance Act 2008
                1. Targeted a tax planning scheme which had been in use since 2001. This had been fully disclosed every year through self-assessment.
                2. Retrospective tax going back 7 years. Retrospective accrued interest of up to 50%.
                3. HMRC knew about it right from the start. They notified tax offices about it in July 2002 via Technical Exchange 63.
                4. 3000 people affected. Majority unable to pay, fearing bankruptcy & losing their homes.
                5. After a 3-year legal challenge, courts have ruled that it does not breach human rights. HMRC now preparing to issue retrospective tax demands.
                6. 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.
                7. The 4 test cases were never heard of again.
                8. HMRC changed its view on the scheme in Autumn 2007, claiming that it was caught by legislation from 1987.
                9. Instead of testing this new view in court, HMRC recommended that the Government legislate with retrospective effect.
                10. HMRC asserted that Section 58 merely clarified the 1987 legislation which itself was retrospective. This was a contrived deception.
                11. The 1987 legislation 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.
                12. The 1987 legislation did not retrospectively tax anyone. It did not raise a single penny in revenue.
                13. 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.
                14. Conservative and LibDem MPs tabled an amendment to remove the retrospective element but it was defeated by the Labour majority.
                15. We are now calling on Parliament to amend Section 58 so that it complies with the "Rees Rules" and takes effect from the date the measure was first announced - Budget Note 66 on 12th March 2008.
                16. This would put us back to the position where HMRC could proceed with litigation on the basis of the law as it stood prior to 2008.

                Comment


                  Need to see my MP again I think !

                  Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View Post
                  .
                  Section 58 Finance Act 2008
                  1. Targeted a tax planning scheme which had been in use since 2001. This had been fully disclosed every year through self-assessment.
                  2. Retrospective tax going back 7 years. Retrospective accrued interest of up to 50%.
                  3. HMRC knew about it right from the start. They notified tax offices about it in July 2002 via Technical Exchange 63.
                  4. 3000 people affected. Majority unable to pay, fearing bankruptcy & losing their homes.
                  5. After a 3-year legal challenge, courts have ruled that it does not breach human rights. HMRC now preparing to issue retrospective tax demands.
                  6. 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.
                  7. The 4 test cases were never heard of again.
                  8. HMRC changed its view on the scheme in Autumn 2007, claiming that it was caught by legislation from 1987.
                  9. Instead of testing this new view in court, HMRC recommended that the Government legislate with retrospective effect.
                  10. HMRC asserted that Section 58 merely clarified the 1987 legislation which itself was retrospective. This was a contrived deception.
                  11. The 1987 legislation 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.
                  12. The 1987 legislation did not retrospectively tax anyone. It did not raise a single penny in revenue.
                  13. 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.
                  14. Conservative and LibDem MPs tabled an amendment to remove the retrospective element but it was defeated by the Labour majority.
                  15. We are now calling on Parliament to amend Section 58 so that it complies with the "Rees Rules" and takes effect from the date the measure was first announced - Budget Note 66 on 12th March 2008.
                  16. This would put us back to the position where HMRC could proceed with litigation on the basis of the law as it stood prior to 2008.
                  Time to book a second visit !
                  http://notoretrotax.org.uk/

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing View Post
                    All,

                    It has been noted that many communications from MP's and not least David Gauke seem to imply some resistance to "repeal" or "amendment" of Section 58. Naturally, asking Parliament to make changes to any law requires serious consideration, so some 'push back' can be assumed. However, let us remember that when we engage with our MP's not least in person on a matter so personal and emotive as this and not lacking some trepedation for those who may have only done so on this matter for the first time that we must be 100% clear what we are asking for.

                    1. We are asking for the retrospective element of Section 58 FA 2008 to be amended in accordance with the Parliamentary Rees-Rules so that it has effect from the date of its announcement -12th March 2008.

                    2. We are asking for the grounds of this consideration to include the position of the then Opposition Parties when debating this Clause in the 2008 Finance Bill.

                    3. We are asking the amendment so as to allow Natural Justice to be applied so that whilst the abhorrant nature of retrospective legislation is negated, such an amendment will allow:
                    3.a Those affected to challenge the matter with HMRC in the Tax Courts as was proposed to be the case before Section 58 was enacted as HMRC intended via the previous 4 test cases.
                    3.b So that with the law as it stood prior to Section 58, the tax payer has their rightful day in court to be judged on the law as it was when the transaction was carried out.
                    3.c To once and for all, via the Tax Courts, allow Natural Justice and the rule of law as it stood to determine whether the symbolic scales of justice - to rule whether it is the taxpayer or HMRC who are in the right on this matter.

                    So, in short, make it clear if not already done to your MP or indeed others with whom we have complaint that we are not asking to be excused any liability merely on the basis of abhorrant legislation, nor indeed do we expect Parliament simply to move without resistance on such matters. Our claim and beef is with HMRC and we believe we have the wind in our favour:

                    We are asking to go before the Tax Courts with the law as it stood prior to Section S58 so that the Tax Courts can rule on the basis of tax law as it stood and that such a fair trail can only occur if the retrospective element of S58 is amended back to 12th March 2008.

                    If you ask why this will be reasonable give the CoA has already ruled, consider this. The Tax Courts cannot entertain the opinions or rulings on Human Rights grounds in their considerations but they can rule on the basis of the law as it stands. But we want their considerations to be allowed on the basis of the law as it stood. After all, if HMRC believed the Scheme never worked, then let them prove that point in a Tax Court. Amending Section 58 allows for such a fight on a "fair" and "level" playing field. "Fair share" does not start and end with sound bites from HMRC. We too can expect this with a share of legal expectation.
                    Nothing to fear? Nothing to hide. We were transparent.
                    Time for Fairness without Time Machines.
                    Regarding your above detailed, and I assume very time consuming summation. I respectfully suggest the above, together with DRs recent lists of fine detail is what we need to get in front of the next Treasury Select Committee.
                    (It has been said before)
                    The way you do that is through your........... MPs MPs MPs MPs 650 of them in Parliament. 80% don't know the story.


                    As of 14 November 2011, the members of the committee are as follows:
                    Member Party Constituency
                    Andrew Tyrie MP (Chair) Conservative Chichester
                    Michael Fallon MP Conservative Sevenoaks
                    Mark Garnier MP Conservative Wyre Forest
                    Stewart Hosie MP Scottish National Party Dundee East
                    Andrea Leadsom MP Conservative South Northamptonshire
                    Andy Love MP Labour Co-op Edmonton
                    John Mann MP Labour Bassetlaw
                    Pat McFadden MP Labour Leyton and Wanstead
                    George Mudie MP Labour Leeds East
                    Jesse Norman MP Conservative Hereford and South Herefordshire
                    Teresa Pearce MP Labour Erith and Thamesmead
                    David Ruffley MP Conservative Bury St Edmunds
                    John Thurso MP Liberal Democrat Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross

                    Visit your MP

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by Ganimos View Post
                      Regarding your above detailed, and I assume very time consuming summation. I respectfully suggest the above, together with DRs recent lists of fine detail is what we need to get in front of the next Treasury Select Committee.
                      (It has been said before)
                      The way you do that is through your........... MPs MPs MPs MPs 650 of them in Parliament. 80% don't know the story.


                      As of 14 November 2011, the members of the committee are as follows:
                      Member Party Constituency
                      Andrew Tyrie MP (Chair) Conservative Chichester
                      Michael Fallon MP Conservative Sevenoaks
                      Mark Garnier MP Conservative Wyre Forest
                      Stewart Hosie MP Scottish National Party Dundee East
                      Andrea Leadsom MP Conservative South Northamptonshire
                      Andy Love MP Labour Co-op Edmonton
                      John Mann MP Labour Bassetlaw
                      Pat McFadden MP Labour Leyton and Wanstead
                      George Mudie MP Labour Leeds East
                      Jesse Norman MP Conservative Hereford and South Herefordshire
                      Teresa Pearce MP Labour Erith and Thamesmead
                      David Ruffley MP Conservative Bury St Edmunds
                      John Thurso MP Liberal Democrat Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross

                      Visit your MP

                      Any idea how many of us have one of these as our local MP? Guessing there might not be too many in Caithness or Dundee, but you never know.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X