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

[BrilloPad]

They have misjudged us. They assumed that we would go away.

Like alot here I have no choice. Its a fight to the death. There will be no quarter given.

[the great escape]

Tax avoidance: HMRC could gain billions as court rules against 'artificial' scheme - Telegraph

Has anyone been in touch with Richard Evans? Or shall I email him?

So what now...forget about retrospection. The fact that something is merely artificial now gives the right to a claw back.

Well, that's great HMRC. Then after you've destroyed our lives, you go ahead and claw back every penny you can find from every artificial arrangement out there, regardless of who operates it and who's involved. Go to the wealthiest people in Britain, unravel the sharp end of artificiality - the corporate heads, your average retired politician now on their public speaking tour, celebrities, pop stars, even dare we say those in govt. depts. Because let's face it, it's all artificial. Isn't the success of any business based on the shadow of a lie?

But you won't. There'll be a point you'll cross and someone of influence with will say 'ok, that's enough'. And how do we know? Because the same people have been doing it time immemorial.

You want to make an example of us because who want the average person to think that other average people are ripping them off. Convince the public that you're doing the right thing. And all the while, you allow wealthy enterprises and individuals to enjoy a completely different tax affair because, despite the reduced amount, it's a valuable contribution to the economy.

Don't you get HMRC. Those people make profit out of screwing contractors like us over, cutting daily rates because they say times are hard, just so they can maintain a level of profitability that allows them to continue with their 'contribution' that stops you looking deeper into their finances. They screw us and you screw us again.

You won't get everyone because you're not allowed to. It's 2-tier Britain. Keep re-intrepretting the law HMRC until you've found the truth. All you'll find is 2 men facing you - one with money, one with a gun.

[centurian]

So what now...forget about retrospection. The fact that something is merely artificial now gives the right to a claw back.

This is still a completely different situation to s58.

The law hasn't changed at all. This problem is that this scheme was never legal to begin with.

Just because a scheme provider puts a "100% legal" or "certified by QC" badge on a scheme doesn't automatically mean it will work. The blame doesn't lie with HMRC here, it's with PwC selling a scheme that never worked.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

This is still a completely different situation to s58.

The law hasn't changed at all. This problem is that this scheme was never legal to begin with.

Just because a scheme provider puts a "100% legal" or "certified by QC" badge on a scheme doesn't automatically mean it will work. The blame doesn't lie with HMRC here, it's with PwC selling a scheme that never worked.

HMRC wouldn't have gone to court over this if they didn't have at least a 50/50 chance of winning.

In our case they had little or no prospect of winning, which is why they cheated and went for retrospective legislation.

[the great escape]

This is still a completely different situation to s58.

The law hasn't changed at all. This problem is that this scheme was never legal to begin with.

Just because a scheme provider puts a "100% legal" or "certified by QC" badge on a scheme doesn't automatically mean it will work. The blame doesn't lie with HMRC here, it's with PwC selling a scheme that never worked.

You've missed the point. It's not about certainty. It's about the article, the rising precedent and the 'overiding' effect it [artificial] could have on our case in the Tribunal. "This gives a very clear indication of the way courts are now looking at tax schemes,"..."Things are now running very much against tax avoidance schemes, both politically and in the courts."

'are now' clearly indicates that at one time things were more tolerated. Maybe the legal argument on it's own could hold water. But google up the number of potential negligence claims being brought against tax advisors and accountants over the last 10 years and you'll see things have sky-rocketed. HMRC are moving beyond the boundaries to apply morality to the legal argument. And that, from the article, suggests it's not just because of the rise in the number of schemes.

Surely you can see the parallels in Parker's judgement...."It is also immediately plain that the tax avoidance scheme, if it worked, would be singularly attractive to any person" but " ... it was far from clear cut whether the scheme worked". "The crunch question was whether " it struck a "...fair balance between the between the various interests involved". The judgement concludes, even if it had worked, there are other arguments "in the public interest" that countered it. And overall, because of that, we got canned.

If our case is different, then why have I got a bill? From HMRC's point of view, it's the same. That's why they went for Padmore because then they could say it never worked (since 1987) and hence justify the retrospection. There's no changing of the law either.

Whether you feel some obligation to HMRC to justify their other dealings on this forum is entirely your own affair. If I thought they always acted fairly then I'd pay up and move on. But I'm certain, like you, that's not the case. Personally I think they've got enough support without giving them anymore.

[screwthis]

This problem is that this scheme was never legal to begin with.

What are you basing this statement on?

[Ninja]

Define 'artificial'

Is an ISA 'artificial'? After all, you could just pop down to the local Post Office at the end of your road to bank your savings. What could be easier?

But 'No', you went to the trouble of speaking to a financial advisor & filling in all those forms. Why?

The only reason was to save tax of course!

[BolshieBastard]

Well we all have opinions on whether the scheme was 'legal' or not.

IMO, MTM \ MontP cocked up in their discussions with HMRC. I'd love to play poker with MTM \ MontP because they showed their hand far too readily and easily to HMRC. They shouldnt have responded in the way they did to HMRC's use of Archer Schree, whatever etc. They should have said we'll see you at the tax tribunal \ commissioner.

Once MTM \ MontP had argued their position outside the legislative framework, HMRC were backed into a corner and they knew they couldnt defeat the scheme ordinarily in court (so that proves the scheme wasnt illegal).

But that's water under the bridge now.

[nevergiveup]

Just had usual the response from MP saying nothing more he can do etc etc. Sent letter onto Whitehouse.

[travellingknob]

All HMRC need to do is make scheme promoters responsible for the avoided tax and make it law that they have an insurance policy to cover a potential loss.

i.e. PWC advise me to join a scheme run by them It fails and therefore they are responsible for reimbursing me for my losses. An insurance policy held by them would ensure they can't run away without paying!

We would very quickly see these providers go away as they would struggle to get insurance.

On the face of it your right but scratch the surface and its not that simple at all:
What constitutes a scheme ?
Surely there are no scheme promotors just accountants and tax advisers telling you what the law states.
Is it just 'wholly artificial' schemes your referring to ? What does that mean ?
What constitutes avoidance ? Does arranging your affairs mean your practicing avoidance ? Where is this line drawn ?
I joined this scheme to give me certainty over IR35 yet the HR judgement reckons it was artificial.
Who decides ? A judge, Tribunals or HMRC ?
Who decides if the insurance pays out ? The insurance company or someone else ? When do they pay out ?
Why would the insurance compensate you ? I though the idea of insurance was to cover the scheme promotors liability to tax.
How does a so called scheme promoter decide if they need this insurance ? Sounds like the same ambiguities that IR35 produces to me.
Do you prefer these ambiguities to the certainty law is there to provide with qualified decisions made by Judges ?
Are umbrella companies scheme promotors ?

So in conclusion you seem to be buying into HMRCs arguments of 'pay what we think' instead of insisting that good laws are produced which we can all see, understand and abide by.