• 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!

No To Retro Tax – Campaign Against Section 58 Finance Act 2008

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

    You can have a copy of mine if you like.

    Originally posted by nevergiveup View Post
    Your having a laugh. I've been waiting for a response from my MP and Gauke since the 9th of March. I recon my letter has fallen down the back of his sofa!
    It will be exactly the same.

    Comment


      Originally posted by BarneyCool View Post
      It will be exactly the same.

      Comment


        HMRC campaign deadlines approach for electricians and online traders

        Interesting item here.

        HMRC campaign deadlines approach for electricians and online traders | Westbury | London

        "" The campaigns offer a 'window of opportunity', where those in the group specified may come forward and disclose any income that HMRC is not aware of. ""

        No stupid smiley.
        Last edited by wertert; 10 May 2012, 14:45.

        Comment


          Originally posted by Fog View Post
          Anyone have any ideas how we can make this a Gauke priority? I'm guessing there are other 'things' he has to deal with - but what?
          I can confirm that Gauke is being engaged by at least one Cabinet MP on this. I can confirm that the standard reply from Mr. Gauke is to be rebutted and various explicit answers being asked of him and in his own words. This is not an attack on David Gauke, it is a Ministerial engagement following due Parliamentary process. Notwithstanding, 'that' letter will need improving on as a result. A key demand for a specific response is on the matter of Parliament being misled on a matter that is considered serious - retrospection. This has thus far been 'avoided'.

          Comment


            Originally posted by Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing View Post
            I can confirm that Gauke is being engaged by at least one Cabinet MP on this. I can confirm that the standard reply from Mr. Gauke is to be rebutted and various explicit answers being asked of him and in his own words. This is not an attack on David Gauke, it is a Ministerial engagement following due Parliamentary process. Notwithstanding, 'that' letter will need improving on as a result. A key demand for a specific response is on the matter of Parliament being misled on a matter that is considered serious - retrospection. This has thus far been 'avoided'.
            aggressively avoided.

            Comment


              Originally posted by Buzby View Post
              aggressively avoided.
              I'd say it's a straight forward case of avasionation.

              Comment


                Tax Court Nightmare?

                I had a chat with a retired tax lawyer (ex magic circle) today and here was his thinking on the tax courts matter:

                1. HMRC issue 3000 Closure notices for EACH year - so possibly 10,000-12,000 total
                2. All the different promoters appeal (which they are doing)
                3. Therefore the cases need to be heard at the First Tier Tax Tribunal (FTT)
                4. HMRC then have 2 choices - a or b
                a. Write to 3000 people asking us to abide by a single "lead case" - we will obviously tell them no
                b. Just take a TEST case to court and if they win that one (not a foregone conclusion by the way) then they try to pressurise us into not proceeding with our cases - again we will tell them no.
                5. The FTT can only handle 40ish cases at a time, not 10,000. Not 3,000.
                6. He noted that there are a. lots of different promoters. b. all schemes were not at all identical c. all "individual" cases are by no means identical.
                He suggests that HMRC may have shot themselves in the foot here. Only a new "law" (eg "Thou shallt not have your day in court") would really assist them. Or if they manage to convince a judge that our schemes are all identical (which they are patently not)

                One of the basic premises of Human Rights in this country is to have "our day in court" - not to vicariously enjoy the day thru a test or lead case - but to have an opportunity to have our individual circumstances heard by a judge. Its a basic Human Right, and I personally have been in court and seen how judges aim to ensure that right stays with us. (in exactly the same context of arguments by one set of parties that their circumstances are all in fact different, and NOT identical)
                Join the campaign at
                http://notoretrotax.org.uk

                Comment


                  Originally posted by Dieselpower View Post
                  I had a chat with a retired tax lawyer (ex magic circle) today and here was his thinking on the tax courts matter:

                  1. HMRC issue 3000 Closure notices for EACH year - so possibly 10,000-12,000 total
                  2. All the different promoters appeal (which they are doing)
                  3. Therefore the cases need to be heard at the First Tier Tax Tribunal (FTT)
                  4. HMRC then have 2 choices - a or b
                  a. Write to 3000 people asking us to abide by a single "lead case" - we will obviously tell them no
                  b. Just take a TEST case to court and if they win that one (not a foregone conclusion by the way) then they try to pressurise us into not proceeding with our cases - again we will tell them no.
                  5. The FTT can only handle 40ish cases at a time, not 10,000. Not 3,000.
                  6. He noted that there are a. lots of different promoters. b. all schemes were not at all identical c. all "individual" cases are by no means identical.
                  He suggests that HMRC may have shot themselves in the foot here. Only a new "law" (eg "Thou shallt not have your day in court") would really assist them. Or if they manage to convince a judge that our schemes are all identical (which they are patently not)

                  One of the basic premises of Human Rights in this country is to have "our day in court" - not to vicariously enjoy the day thru a test or lead case - but to have an opportunity to have our individual circumstances heard by a judge. Its a basic Human Right, and I personally have been in court and seen how judges aim to ensure that right stays with us. (in exactly the same context of arguments by one set of parties that their circumstances are all in fact different, and NOT identical)
                  The phrase "couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery" comes to mind.... HMRC you tossers!
                  Politicians are wonderfull people, as long as they stay away from things they don't understand, like working for a living!

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by portseven View Post
                    The phrase "couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery" comes to mind.... HMRC you tossers!
                    +1

                    I will be in court for my case. See you there Alan

                    Comment


                      Twitter

                      Checkout #No2RetroTax

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X