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

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Interesting phrasing: 'their version'. Implies that they accept that the schemes were not in fact identical as they have previously tried to pass off. I wonder where this leaves the poor guy who they did make bankrupt.

Actually, re-reading that, I think there's a more sinister spin. I think what they are saying is that it isn't S58 that has bankrupted us, it's Padmore. S58 just clarified that we would be bankrupted.

I think their responses need to be taken with a huge pinch of salt.

The figure of 1900 for example is highly suspect and is not even close to the numbers I've got from Montp, Steed, deGraaf etc.

Moreover, the claim that one third of people set up Trusts, costing £1000, and didn't use the scheme is unbelievable.

[warlord]

Finally received response from David Gauke - what a joke!

Highlights from letter from David Gauke….

It may be helpful to be clear that the tax arrangements used by xxx were described by the courts as wholly artificial tax avoidance scheme.

You mention TN63 produced by HMRC – my understanding is that this internal note expressed a view on the merits of only one possible challenge to the avoidance scheme. It is clear that TN63 as a whole that HMRC was gathering information in order to challenge the avoidance scheme on an alternative basic, rather than accept it. The existence and purpose of this note was considered as part of the JR. As I have previously said HMRC has consistently maintained that the avoidance scheme does not work and notified users of this within the statutory time limits.

MR xxx refers to statements made by former Financial secretary. The Hansard record of the debate refereed to by XXX includes a clear statement by Jane Kennedy that HMRC was aware of the 2000 scheme users, and that this number was increasing. With regard to the question of an impact assessment, as the court sets out in its judgment at the time that the decision was made HMRC knew with reasonable precision the number of taxpayers who had sought to obtain advantages from the artificial arrangements and that amount of income tax as stake. In assessing the impact of the change HMRC has satisfied itself that amongst other factors, the legislation would not inadvertently apply to those not using the scheme and that those choosing to use the scheme had received professional advice and that no commercial justification had been offered.
The separate decision not to publish a regulatory impact assessment was in line with HMRC general policy of not publishing a regulatory impact assessment where a measure does not target the complaint taxpaying public. The court considered that the absence of such an assessment did not affect the proportionality of the retro legislation.

The comprehensive judgments provided by the courts took account of the other points raised by xxxx in the note he has provided but, as I have previously mentioned, if a user of a scheme is now having short term difficulties in meeting their tax liabilities HMRC is able to exercise discretion through established procedures by allowing additional time to pay, blah, blah

What a liar he is and clearly owns a time machine!

[Buzby]

Highlights from letter from David Gauke….

It may be helpful to be clear that the tax arrangements used by xxx were described by the courts as wholly artificial tax avoidance scheme.

You mention TN63 produced by HMRC – my understanding is that this internal note expressed a view on the merits of only one possible challenge to the avoidance scheme. It is clear that TN63 as a whole that HMRC was gathering information in order to challenge the avoidance scheme on an alternative basic, rather than accept it. The existence and purpose of this note was considered as part of the JR. As I have previously said HMRC has consistently maintained that the avoidance scheme does not work and notified users of this within the statutory time limits.

....

What a liar he is and clearly owns a time machine!

just to repeat it again, here is what Gauke said in 2008:

The retrospective nature of the clause is deeply troubling.

The existing legislation appears to deal with the issue where the UK residents or domiciled individuals are partners in the relevant offshore funds, but it does not seem to work where the partners are trusts and the UK individuals are benefiting from the arrangement. The proposal essentially states that the amendments contained in the clause are to be treated as always having had effect. Either the law exists or it does not. It is troubling when the Government state that the law in the past is something because that is what they say it is now.

[moira under the stairs]

Highlights from letter from David Gauke….

It may be helpful to be clear that the tax arrangements used by xxx were described by the courts as wholly artificial tax avoidance scheme.

You mention TN63 produced by HMRC – my understanding is that this internal note expressed a view on the merits of only one possible challenge to the avoidance scheme. It is clear that TN63 as a whole that HMRC was gathering information in order to challenge the avoidance scheme on an alternative basic, rather than accept it. The existence and purpose of this note was considered as part of the JR. As I have previously said HMRC has consistently maintained that the avoidance scheme does not work and notified users of this within the statutory time limits.

MR xxx refers to statements made by former Financial secretary. The Hansard record of the debate refereed to by XXX includes a clear statement by Jane Kennedy that HMRC was aware of the 2000 scheme users, and that this number was increasing. With regard to the question of an impact assessment, as the court sets out in its judgment at the time that the decision was made HMRC knew with reasonable precision the number of taxpayers who had sought to obtain advantages from the artificial arrangements and that amount of income tax as stake. In assessing the impact of the change HMRC has satisfied itself that amongst other factors, the legislation would not inadvertently apply to those not using the scheme and that those choosing to use the scheme had received professional advice and that no commercial justification had been offered.
The separate decision not to publish a regulatory impact assessment was in line with HMRC general policy of not publishing a regulatory impact assessment where a measure does not target the complaint taxpaying public. The court considered that the absence of such an assessment did not affect the proportionality of the retro legislation.

The comprehensive judgments provided by the courts took account of the other points raised by xxxx in the note he has provided but, as I have previously mentioned, if a user of a scheme is now having short term difficulties in meeting their tax liabilities HMRC is able to exercise discretion through established procedures by allowing additional time to pay, blah, blah

What a liar he is and clearly owns a time machine!

I can't see this being Gauke responding, if it is he should be shot as he is not looking at all the facts, this is someones warped interpretaion or an HMRC bod trying to get themselves out of an enormous hole.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I can't see this being Gauke responding, if it is he should be shot as he is not looking at all the facts, this is someones warped interpretaion or an HMRC bod trying to get themselves out of an enormous hole.

Comparing these letters and other correspondence it is pretty obvious that HMRC are writing them and Gauke is just signing them.

I doubt Gauke has even read them carefully (if at all).

[moira under the stairs]

Comparing these letters and other correspondence it is pretty obvious that HMRC are writing them and Gauke is just signing them.

I doubt Gauke has even read them carefully (if at all).

Kind of what my MP alluded too.

[foolishboy]

Great Britain?

I can't see this being Gauke responding, if it is he should be shot as he is not looking at all the facts, this is someones warped interpretaion or an HMRC bod trying to get themselves out of an enormous hole.

Most of the time I can remain fairly objective about our predicament and at times I even believe that true justice will prevail. But whenever the name David Gauke comes up I find myself choked with anguish and fury - this is a man who openly condemns us whilst being one of our strongest allies in opposition. How dare he and any conservative politician take the moral high ground.
It sickens me too that some who support us now do so because they are in opposition and for no other reason.

The Olympic fervour has created in me this temporary belief that our country is still great and an aspirational place in which to live but the name David Gauke reminds me that our country is run be the most morally repugnant individuals known to man.

I hope they all rot in hell

[bombaycat]

More Gauke tulip...

Just got another load of fantasy lies from Gauke via my MP. I agree with people below, someone else is writing this stuff but their problem is everything they say is total lies. Like people often say - you can keep saying it but it won't make it true....

I'll be replying to my MP pointing out the total inaccuracy of the content of the excuse for a response. I suspect that this guy must be the most annoying MP for other MPs that there has ever been - his reputation must be sh1te generally since so many people are constantly complaining about the hypocracy he spews.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

If I was Gauke I know what I'd be telling HMRC.

You created this bloody mess. You can bloody well deal with it.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I'll be replying to my MP pointing out the total inaccuracy of the content of the excuse for a response.

You might want to wait until next week because Whitehouse are working on a reply.