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

[marcuss]

I've had a response from Dominic Raab - it seems to be the standard response. This was in response to a letter I sent prior to the NC4 amendment .

Do I need to send this on to Whitehouse?


'I can certainly appreciate the point you have raised, and I have already been in contact with David Gauke, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, on this very issue.

The government set out its position on retrospection in the "Tackling Tax Avoidance" document, produced as part of the Budget 2011. The government argue that the deterrent effect of acting retrospectively needs to be balanced against the need for the maintaining the UK tax system's reputation for predictability, stability and simplicity. In particular, the Protocol states that changes to tax legislation where the change takes effect retrospectively will be wholly exceptional.

The 2008 Finance Act was introduced in response to an artificial avoidance scheme used by more than 3,000 taxpayers. This scheme looked to exploit a perceived loophole in legislation enacted in 1987 that was intended to put beyond doubt that the UK has always retained the right to tax its own residents.

In two judicial reviews, the Courts have found that the retrospective element of the legislation is proportionate and compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. While I am sorry to hear you have been affected by Section 58, the government relies on the Courts' verdicts that the changes were proportionate.

HMRC has regularly recommended that payments on account be made. However, HMRC has established procedures to consider allowing Time to Pay for those with short term difficulties meeting liabilities as they fall due. I enclose a briefing for your information.

Thank you again for raising the matter with me'

Exact copy of a letter I received from my MP.. Already forwarded mine to Whitehouse and DR...

It is disheartening to find that the MP who is representing you chooses to be blind and does not even bother to read our points.... :-(

[swede]

ditto.

Exact copy of a letter I received from my MP.. Already forwarded mine to Whitehouse and DR...

It is disheartening to find that the MP who is representing you chooses to be blind and does not even bother to read our points.... :-(

a friend of mine who isn't affected by bn66 wrote to their MP (Basingstoke Maria Miller) - they also added additional paragraphs as a concerned owner of a medium-sized company - they received the same reply.

I have sent details to Whitehouse.

[Morlock]

building momentum is hard to view from outside unless there's an associated tabloid campaign.

huh?

[BolshieBastard]

Well, finally got a reply today from Ben Wallace to the 4 emails I had sent which didnt get any acknowledgement.

Once again he re stated his unease at retrospective legislation of BN66 when at the time, people were doing nothing illegal and being now asked to pay penalties. He says he's writing to gauke again but also states the courts have found the changes arent incompatible with the human rights angle.

[honeyridges]

Semantics

Its some weird parallel universe these people inhabit isnt it. If S58 has not affected anyones tax position then its removal will likewise not affect anyones tax position QED.

This is the absolute clarification of the nonsense of their argument, if anyone needs it spelling out. The problem seems to be one of logic (us lot) against semantics (their lot). Who wins isn't clear but I think we have a supremely strong case morally given the circumstances - all that really worries me is "who's listening". Still, there's nothing more dangerous than a wild animal cornered and that just about sums up many of us. We know we're not criminals - what annoys the hell out of me is that we've been made to feel like criminals by politicians of all people.

[Toocan]

This is the absolute clarification of the nonsense of their argument, if anyone needs it spelling out. The problem seems to be one of logic (us lot) against semantics (their lot). Who wins isn't clear but I think we have a supremely strong case morally given the circumstances - all that really worries me is "who's listening". Still, there's nothing more dangerous than a wild animal cornered and that just about sums up many of us. We know we're not criminals - what annoys the hell out of me is that we've been made to feel like criminals by politicians of all people.

I don’t think it’s the politicians – it’s actually the civil servants.

For example, the civil servants knew that DTA claims had been accepted – but they have not admitted this to the politicians/Ministers.

Almost all MPs have been supportive – the others have been new MPs who perhaps don’t yet realise they are being misled.

Perhaps we should be sending in a DVD of “Yes Minister”?

[GripRacing]

Disappointing response from Tory MP; expected response from David Gauke

Hi All,

This is from David Tredinnick, Conservative MP:

Dear Mr and Mrs nnnnn,

Section 58(4) and (5) Finance Act 2008

I attach the response I have received from the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury to my representations on your behalf. The letter explains the reason for the decision to make the change to the legislation retrospective and that this was given full consideration by the Courts.

I appreciate that this leaves many people like yourselves in a very unfortunate position. You entered into a tax planning scheme only to discover in due course that the Courts regarded it as unacceptable.

I am very sorry I cannot be of further assistance.

My best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

David Tredinnick


Now, as it happens, I don't blame David Tredinnick for this response, and if you read his comments at the end of the letter he isn't saying 'so please go away', I think that he is actually saying that even though he does understand what has happened to us 'I am very sorry I cannot be of further assistance' -whipped in other words.

The real response was from David Gauke, and David Tredinnick included that letter with his reply to me. Not sure if it is the standard response or not as it's 2 pages long, does refer to the points I raised and uses our names, on occasion, within the letter.

I will scan both letters and send on to DR & Whitehouse.

DR - would it be useful to post the full content of that reply from David Gauke on this forum or is it best not to?

Regards,

GripRacing

[the great escape]

The resistance...

This is the absolute clarification of the nonsense of their argument, if anyone needs it spelling out. The problem seems to be one of logic (us lot) against semantics (their lot). Who wins isn't clear but I think we have a supremely strong case morally given the circumstances - all that really worries me is "who's listening". Still, there's nothing more dangerous than a wild animal cornered and that just about sums up many of us. We know we're not criminals - what annoys the hell out of me is that we've been made to feel like criminals by politicians of all people.

You read K019 and back in opposition 3 prominent MPs were wholly against the retrospection in s58 and vowed to amend it once in power. Those 3 are now Chancellor, Treasurer and Prime Minister. How can they live with that? Millsy was too kind when he said " the Government Members’ [Gauke's] objection to that principle seems to have softened since then".

With the wealth of inconsistencies to hand, both in our case and the judgement of it compared to others of a similar fashion, this is not about us being wrong. Only 60% of the MPs agreed with the original clause back in 2008, and that in itself was based on shoddy info. When Millsy stood up 4 score and two Tuesday's ago, nobody knocked him back except 'the minister'.

This is only about a few key people covering their backs. Someone out there is about to take mine and your livelihood so they can keep theirs. My money+your money plays their career, their bonus, their continuity. That's not politics, that's survival.

The common face of the NTRT campaign is accessing levels that I alone simply wouldn't have a hope of. There's no doubt that their involvement is cruicle. But there's nothing stopping any of us taking up the baton in parallel. I told Whitehouse I was thinking of writing to a Lord and they said 'why not, can't hurt'. Who cares?..probably nobody. Except me, and I have to. Printing press, several Lords, whatever. As independents, they of all people should appreciate the need for such arrangements. NTRT are right. In the first instance, it's about publicity, getting people talking, giving them the angles to slay their opponent. I'll ring the Gang of 3 at the revenue, even try others. Raise questions, record answers, interrogate them using what you know. Put them on the spot, ferret out a personal statement, not some well rehersed trollop. Feed it all back to NTRT HQ.

You put your faith in Montpelier, and they've been ambushed. Now faith has gone into NTRT, and the wheels are turning, albeit slowly. We need to get as many rats out of the ship as possible, by whatever means available. Only then will it sink. And this baby has to sink.

[centurian]

You read K019 and back in opposition 3 prominent MPs were wholly against the retrospection in s58 and vowed to amend it once in power. Those 3 are now Chancellor, Treasurer and Prime Minister. How can they live with that?

A bit of balance here, but I don't think they ever said that.

If K019 is the document I think it is, then in the full original source letter from George Osbourne, he does make it very clear in the following paragraph that he cannot promise to amend s58.

[the great escape]

?

A bit of balance here, but I don't think they ever said that.

If K019 is the document I think it is, then in the full original source letter from George Osbourne, he does make it very clear in the following paragraph that he cannot promise to amend s58.

...yes, if you're working off the 2009 statement, after party conditioning. But if you go back to the original 2008 reaction to s58 from all 3 it reads...

Cameron "...we intend to table amendments to the Bill to remove the restrospective nature of these provisions"
Osbourne "...this legislation ought to apply prospectively"
Gauke "...I am more convinced than ever that the retrospective nature of the clause is unacceptable".

Sounds like a united front to me. Not sure what balance you speak of given the controversy behind the decision.