Originally posted by GBHuhd
View Post
-
Don't panic. This exact same thing has happened before and MontP were told about it. The systems that operate for DMO, collections and those who deal with appeals are not connected - HMRC actually told me this. The mob's system does not know about your CN being appealed and don't wate time calling the DMO if it is they who's automated ZX81 sent you the "we're coming" letter. As DR said, pass it to MontP. -
In early 2006 they finally gave their reasons - Archer Shee & s.739 ICTA 1988. One was case law and the other an anti avoidance measure. MontP challenged the claim with a letter that took their arguments apart and that was the last anyone ever heard of the matter. But they already had TN63 that told them the same from 2002.Originally posted by the great escape View Post
But give them credit, in 2005 the latest tax act was passed (ITTOIA 2005) and it actually referred to clarifying Padmore. It made sure to clear up any issue of a charge to tax for the Padmore case. Funny that it made no reference to our situation in that clarification. It took s.58 wizardry to make the second clarification. I can think of another more legal word or phrase to explain "wizardry" but let's no go there for now. The fact that s.58 clarifies ITTOIA 2005 for the second time on this matter would be hilarious if it wasn't for the fact that it will wreck so many lives. Just add this to the ever growing pile of s.58 juxtapositions and you'll end up with more than a time machine needed to make it stick.
But they can always depend on the very strong case that they:
Always maintained the scheme didn't work
Never accepted any claims
No senior HMRC official ever accepted the scheme worked
Clarified the 1987 legislation because Parliament had always intended that s.58 applied
Everyone likes Marmite
The opening ceremony at 2012 will be the best one ever and nobody in the UK will cringe
It will stay dry in the UK until October
The hose pipe bans were a good forward thinking long term view strategic idea
The BBC coverage of the Jubilee flotilla pageant was incredible (well I didn't say incredulous).
But it's reassuring to know that HMRC sat on their elbows for 7 years leaning on their ars*s.Comment
-
It sounds as if Tax Law is like one of those ill-thought-out software projects. The ones that take a couple of months to write, and an eternity to debug.Originally posted by Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing View PostComment
-
Radio 5 live - very interesting debate on EBTs.Comment
-
-
Key words: Legal, aggressive and disclosed
How Jimmy Carr avoids tax : News 2012 : Chortle : The UK Comedy Guide
1% tax...Comment
-
So HMRC 'consistently maintained the scheme didn't work' until 2006 using this argument. However it was never tested in Court because, as you've implied, HMRC would have lost it. And so therefore only remains an opinion, not the law. Innocent until proven otherwise, I would have said. Why waste 4 years arguing the toss anyway (02-06) when TN63 'clarifies' (with retrospective effect?) that this argument would fail.Originally posted by Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing View Post
So some enquiries were opened using this argument whilst others using Padmore Revisited. Is that correct?Comment
-
Comment
-
Padmore was never mentioned before 2008.Originally posted by the great escape View Post
Enquiries 2003 to 2006 were just fishing.
In 2006 they came up with Archer Shee/s.739, which they knew would never fly.Comment
-
Urgent Call to Action
Please can everyone email this to their MP now. The amendment will hopefully be tabled next Tuesday 26th June, hence the urgency.
Thanks!Dear [insert MP’s name],
I have previously written to you about Section 58(4) of the Finance Act 2008 and how the retrospective application of this law is threatening to force thousands of people, including myself, into bankruptcy, simply for arranging my affairs in a manner that was entirely transparent and legal the time.
As you may know, there are serious concerns about the way in which this legislation was presented to Parliament. When deciding to implement these tax changes retrospectively, HMRC ignored the Rees rules, which state that clear warning of the Government’s intentions must be given. HMRC failed to carry out an impact assessment, which would have alerted MPs to the fact that thousands of people were likely to be affected by the changes. MPs were also not informed that HMRC had recognised in an internal technical exchange document that the tax schemes in question were entirely legal, that the schemes had been included in the HMRC tax manual since 1993, and that HMRC had previously investigated scheme users and issued closure notices with nothing further to pay, thus accepting that their tax affairs were legitimate.
Indeed, because of these omissions, there are real reasons to believe that Parliament may have been misled by HMRC into passing Section 58(4) retrospectively when there was no need to do so.
While I do not dispute that the Government has a right to make changes to tax legislation and close down loopholes where they do exist, it is draconian and iniquitous to change legislation retrospectively and then pursue people for backdated liabilities which may arise, particularly when those involved have followed the law as it stood and such retrospective demands are likely to have a crippling financial effect on them.
I understand that an amendment is due to be tabled imminently to this year’s Finance Bill which would remove the retrospective application of Section 58(4) and mean that the tax changes it introduced would only come into effect from the date they were first announced. This would not only bring the legislation in line with Parliamentary protocol and natural justice, but prevent myself and thousands of others from being unfairly forced into bankruptcy.
I would be most grateful if you could contact the Exchequer Secretary David Gauke MP as a matter of urgency on my behalf and urge him to support this amendment. I would also appreciate it if you could send me a copy of any reply you may receive.
Yours sincerely,
DRComment
Comment