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

[BolshieBastard]

Just to clarify the legislative position on this. A probing ammendment is never intended to be accepted as an ammendment to the legislation under discussion, it's purpose is purely to stimulate debate on a particular aspect of the legislation being discussed. In this case the retrospection clause.

What has happened now is that the whole issue of retrospective tax around s58 has now been openly questioned in the house, and to a positive reception. This is a major step in the process of getting the act amended since the house now formally knows of the implications of this particular piece of legislation and now they know about it those members who wish to can formally take a position on it when it comes back for debate and formal amendments can then be tabled that are intended to be taken up.

This was the opening move in what will probably be a drawn out process of debate, review and ammendment for the bill and should in no way be seen as a defeat.

*disclaimer : I have no direct involvement in this, just an interest in Law and the legislative process.

And you believe the 'probing' amendment achieved its aims of seeking clarification from the Minister or how the Government intends to use the powers in the Bill in its 5 minute slot?

Guess we'll disagree on that one.

As I said, the Bill now goes to Reporting stage where all members of the House have a chance to debate the Bill and table or re table amendments.

[smalldog]

Just to clarify the legislative position on this. A probing ammendment is never intended to be accepted as an ammendment to the legislation under discussion, it's purpose is purely to stimulate debate on a particular aspect of the legislation being discussed. In this case the retrospection clause.

What has happened now is that the whole issue of retrospective tax around s58 has now been openly questioned in the house, and to a positive reception. This is a major step in the process of getting the act amended since the house now formally knows of the implications of this particular piece of legislation and now they know about it those members who wish to can formally take a position on it when it comes back for debate and formal amendments can then be tabled that are intended to be taken up.

This was the opening move in what will probably be a drawn out process of debate, review and ammendment for the bill and should in no way be seen as a defeat.

*disclaimer : I have no direct involvement in this, just an interest in Law and the legislative process.

DB couldnt agree more, hence me saying I think the reporting will be the interesting bit, as I will be interested to see who takes up the mantle!

[Slobbo]

2 am and can't sleep. I am so dejected and upset that the law appears to be worthless and I now understand 1st hand what useless bunch of two faced liars politicians are. I used to think what a hard job they had because you can't please everyone all of the time. I can respect someone that has strong opinions and dedication to their beliefs even if they conflict with mine. I can't abide someone whos convictions are as fleeting as the wind.

How can Gauke sleep at night knowing what he is saying now is the complete opposite to what he said in the original sitting. He said "down this road leads to tyranny". I guess by his own definition he is a tyrant.

It is my wedding anniversary today. I came home from working away 2 days early as a surprise for my wife. Remembered flowers and everything. Came back to find my wife upset over the joke that our slot seems to have been. Once again our situation has not been given proper consideration. Needless to say neither my wife or I feel much like celebrating.

People who try to manage their Tax efficiently are once again are attacked. Why? Because the economy is a mess. Why is the economy in a mess? Because the government made it so by not properly regulating the financial sector (Australia survived the financial crisis because they properly regulated so why didn't we). What is fair? It's not fair my house isn't worth what it used to be. It isn't fair that when they come to collect the £100k or so they will want from me that this will rise by at least £35k if I have to sell my house. I will lose at least that amount on the sale not to mention the tax I will have to pay on the sale as well. I will then have to find another house for less money which of course I will have to pay tax on and that will undoubtedly require money spent on it. I reckon before I am through my original perceived £74k tax bill will have really cost me double that amount. Thats fair isn't it.

I will never vote again because there is no point.

[OnYourBikeGB]

I still haven't heard the debate, but from reading the comments it sounds to me like it has gone as planned. It's a positive move forward. A big thanks to NTRT and Mills.

[SantaClaus]

I would just like to echo that we are extremely lucky to have Mr Mills on our side.

If only all our politicians had principles like him.

[CanPayButWouldRatherNot]

Now you are talking!

Can I get the batman outfits yet?

ha ha ha .... me 4 brillo 4 eva !

[Dieselpower]

anyone can re-listen to the debate yesterday on link below

Player

[BrilloPad]

I would just like to echo that we are extremely lucky to have Mr Mills on our side.

If only all our politicians had principles like him.

+1

Hopefully we will get something from NTRT and Whitehouse at some point and get a good debrief.

[OldITGit]

Plus one again

+1

Hopefully we will get something from NTRT and Whitehouse at some point and get a good debrief.

What was reassuring was hearing MP's who uphold their principles whether in opposition or in power rather than toeing the party line

[BrilloPad]

What was reassuring was hearing MP's who uphold their principles whether in opposition or in power rather than toeing the party line

Indeed. I got a nice response last night from my Labour MP - repeated below. Clive Efford was on the committee that passed BN66 and accepts he was misled by HMRC. Its a very clever letter - I am very grateful.

At this rate I am going to vote for him! I never ever thought I would vote Labour. The only reason I voted Liberal last time was so I could vote for Dr Tool - a great name for an MP (though a better one for a Bond villain).

------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr Pad,

Below is the text of an email I sent to Ed Balls after you came to visit me:



“Dear Ed

I have recently been contacted by a constituent who fears he is being pushed into bankruptcy by HMRC pursuing him for debts they say he owes through their retrospective use of Section 58 of the 2008 Finance Act.

Along with many colleagues in the IT industry my constituent used the S58 scheme post IR35 in 2000. During the period the loophole was open between 1993 and 2007 HMRC made no intimation that they would close the loophole and certainly no suggestion that they would seek to recover money using retrospective legislation.

In 2008 the used the Finance Act to close the loophole including in the legislation moves to allow HMRC to claw back money retrospectively.

My constituent is now facing a demand from HMRC fro £80,000 (£60,000 tax plus £20,000 interest). It has been calculated that over 3,000 people have been penalised retrospectively in this way. Many of these are, like my constituent, facing bankruptcy.

Jane Kennedy now apparently accepts that she did not know that so many people would be affected in this way.

Campaigners are now calling for section 58 to be amended so that it takes effect only from the date that the measure was first announced – budget note 66 on 12 March 2008.

This Act appears to have affected a relatively large number of people who have been caught up by the retrospective nature of the Act which does not seem to have been predicted at the time.

As we introduced this legislation and defeated attempts to stop it being backdated I thought it best to check what our position is now, particularly in the light of the information that Jane Kennedy accepts that it was a mistake. I look forward to hearing from you.



Best wishes



Clive Efford MP”



The reason we have contacted Ed Balls before we go to George Osborne is that he was working at the Treasury at the time. If we can show that there was no intention to use the Act retrospectively then we can put a strong argument to the current Chancellor.



Best wishes



Clive