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

[Iron Condor]

This is not about Section 58.

It is referring to another piece of retro legislation introduced by Labour in 2009 but this was only backdated 3 months (not 7 years!)

Whitehouse represented the scheme promoter "NT Advisors".

This looks like sloppy journalism to me and I doubt the facts stack up.

But i think the point they are making is tax avoidance is a political hot potato at the moment. The chances of government repealing any retro tax is very unlikely.
The media and the left will have field day with the government seen to be back tracking and helping out rich tax avoider friends in keeping their unpaid taxes.

[Ninja]

But i think the point they are making is tax avoidance is a political hot potato at the moment. The chances of government repealing any retro tax is very unlikely.
The media and the left will have field day with the government seen to be back tracking and helping out rich tax avoider friends in keeping their ill gotten gains.

"Ill gotten gains"?

I think you had better retract or clarify that statement, to make it clear that you don't think the people of this forum have 'ill gotten gains'.

[moira under the stairs]

"Ill gotten gains"?

I think you had better retract or clarify that statement, to make it clear that you don't think the people of this forum have 'ill gotten gains'.

Indeed very bad choice of words....

It does seem a little bit of a coincidence that this is all coming out just as we get the review.. is this HMRC/gov "going to the mattresses"

[Toocan]

But i think the point they are making is tax avoidance is a political hot potato at the moment. The chances of government repealing any retro tax is very unlikely.
The media and the left will have field day with the government seen to be back tracking and helping out rich tax avoider friends in keeping their ill gotten gains.

Do you feel it is okay to mislead Parliament if the issue is tax avoidance?

Because that is what this is really about - it's not a tax avoidance issue at all. The court would be free to examine the case and if HMRC did not take the case to the courts then that would further underline the deception that has been used in this case.

I think even the left would want the courts to be fair. (not the extreme left, of course)

[moira under the stairs]

Do you feel it is okay to mislead Parliament if the issue is tax avoidance?

Because that is what this is really about - it's not a tax avoidance issue at all. The court would be free to examine the case and if HMRC did not take the case to the courts then that would further underline the deception that has been used in this case.

I think even the left would want the courts to be fair. (not the extreme left, of course)

Agree... what we have always asked for and demand is our Fair (theres that word again) day in the Tax tribunal court.

This is about the UNFAIR use of retrospective legislation

[Ninja]

Agree... what we have always asked for and demand is our Fair (theres that word again) day in the Tax tribunal court.

This is about the UNFAIR use of retrospective legislation

The first thing I said to my MP on Friday was "I'm not asking you to support or condone tax avoidance. This is all about a gross miscarriage of justice, and potentiallly Parliament being misled; which is very serious."

[Ninja]

Make them an offer they can't refuse...

Indeed very bad choice of words....

It does seem a little bit of a coincidence that this is all coming out just as we get the review.. is this HMRC/gov "going to the mattresses"

But they'd better watch out, because we have our own 'Godfather', namely DR

[p4nd4b34r]

• the person had mental health issues
• they ignored closure notices
• HMRC petitioned for bankruptcy
• the person's family tried to intervene but HMRC/receiver would not listen
• the person was made bankrupt

and what if the retrospective element of s58 gets repealed, will he still be bankrupt, what retribution could follow? once theyve bankrupted someone like this , can they possibly repeal? I'm afraid my view is still our best chance lies in the tribunals, and each and every one of us having our own, using whatever argument MP can provide, (and I believe we are each entitled to MP's individual support)

[Toocan]

and what if the retrospective element of s58 gets repealed, will he still be bankrupt, what retribution could follow? once theyve bankrupted someone like this , can they possibly repeal? I'm afraid my view is still our best chance lies in the tribunals, and each and every one of us having our own, using whatever argument MP can provide, (and I believe we are each entitled to MP's individual support)

My understanding is that bankruptcy cannot be undone. It is final. The victim would probably get some compensation but it will not make up for what has been lost.

I would say that was morally repugnant.

[Disgusted of Coventry]

• the person had mental health issues
• they ignored closure notices
• HMRC petitioned for bankruptcy
• the person's family tried to intervene but HMRC/receiver would not listen
• the person was made bankrupt

This whole wretched business is just plain tawdry.

It's shoddy and tawdry from beginning to end.

I'm usually more of an "idiocy theorist" than a "conspiracy theorist", but there's something distastefully vindictive about all this.