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

[Buzby]

dialog with Mike Elland

while on holiday I received 2 letters - one from Mike Elland, Director General HMRC in response to my letter to my MP asking for help - has anyone else received a response from HMRC? The point of the letter was to say that courts found it reasonable for HMRC to take decisive and effective action (what a laugh that is - decisive and effective LOL) HMRC consistently maintained that the sceme did not work and that the enactment of section 58 clarified the law - also finally it was not within HMRC's remit to consider any amendment to section 58.

Second letter was to confirm that my MP Jeremy Lefroy has asked Gauke to meet with NTRT to at least listen to what they have to say :-) Thank you JLF

I am sure you have forwarded the letter to NTRT team. would be good to be able to reply and ask why some users had tax returns accepted if the scheme didn't work, and why they changed from using the tax tribunal to new legislation.

great work.

[BrilloPad]

while on holiday I received 2 letters - one from Mike Elland, Director General HMRC in response to my letter to my MP asking for help - has anyone else received a response from HMRC? The point of the letter was to say that courts found it reasonable for HMRC to take decisive and effective action (what a laugh that is - decisive and effective LOL) HMRC consistently maintained that the sceme did not work and that the enactment of section 58 clarified the law - also finally it was not within HMRC's remit to consider any amendment to section 58.

Second letter was to confirm that my MP Jeremy Lefroy has asked Gauke to meet with NTRT to at least listen to what they have to say :-) Thank you JLF

HMRC repeating the usual lies then - but I was interested in the highlighted bit. It was not within HMRC's remit to propose s58 in the first place - so they should use whatever remit they used to remove the retrospective part.

Well done JLF!

[Frisby]

long time lurker

Greetings fellow evil tax dodgers,

Been looking in on this thread for a while now so thought I'd say hello.

My story began in the halcyon post millennium post ir35 days, rates were up and no one had heard of Bangalore . I sat with a few other contractors in a little room near the bank of England where New Media factory told us all about a very clever man Mr Gittens, who'd had a flick through tax legislation and found this dual taxation loophole thing.
'How about 6% in the pound and no admin costs' they say
'Is it legal' someone pipes up.
'cause it is. It's fully declared on your tax form.' comes the reply.

I reckon about 75% of us signed up there and then. And we were really lucky as it was exclusive to only a thousand people

Fast forward to the first court case decision day. Me and others from that meeting turned up to the court (did anyone else see Nick Griffin there) to see justice served. It was gonna be great, after all this time. Verdict came, "Oh ****".

Anyway enough of the reminiscing. I'm sure you lot have had a similar experience.
My situation:
I'm in for just over 200k. Got about 80% of it covered. So its a saving wipe out for me and no equity in house + loan.

What have I done.
I've written to Bob Stewart and got a sympathetic reply. However I dont think he's gonna be kicking in Mr Gaukes door nuting him saying 'sort out that amendment you c**t !' anytime soon.
Joined up with NTRT and made a donation.

What are my realistic hopes
To get a deal on the back dated interest

Thanks to all the regular posters for the practical advice especially DR who put me onto the CTD's. How come HMRC didnt give us that as an option eh ? Also thanks to the ranters and ravers and the IT contractors turned part time tax lawyers. It may all come to nothing but it is as they say 'good to talk'.

Cheers for reading

Frisby

[stuffed]

Govt announces it's stance on Retrospective Taxation

Govt promises retrospective tax only for

I like how they don't exactly quantify the guidance behind when they will enact it:

"wholly exceptional circumstances" - A grey area that makes it hard to quantify.

[zippo]

Govt promises retrospective tax only for

I like how they don't exactly quantify the guidance behind when they will enact it:

"wholly exceptional circumstances" - A grey area that makes it hard to quantify.

Does this affect our situation ?

[Ninja]

Define 'wholly exceptional'

Govt promises retrospective tax only for

I like how they don't exactly quantify the guidance behind when they will enact it:

"wholly exceptional circumstances" - A grey area that makes it hard to quantify.

I'm really curious to find out how HM Treasury/HMRC will define what are 'wholly exceptional circumstances'.

[moira under the stairs]

I'm really curious to find out how HM Treasury/HMRC will define what are 'wholly exceptional circumstances'.

That's one of the questions I have posed to my MP, where do I go to find out what makes the Tax Management system I was using an exceptional case for retrospection, when the guy who works next to me used a share scheme that wasn't declared on any tax returns, which had the slate wiped clean.

[PlaneSailing]

I'm really curious to find out how HM Treasury/HMRC will define what are 'wholly exceptional circumstances'.

I reckon doing nothing for 7 years, lying about never accepting any returns, not following through on promised tribunals and lying to parliament would count as wholly exceptional.

[Disgusted of Coventry]

Wholly exceptional...

I'm really curious to find out how HM Treasury/HMRC will define what are 'wholly exceptional circumstances'.

Here's something wholly exceptional - it's from the BN66 press release:

"Legislation will be introduced in Finance Bill 2008 to clarify, retrospectively, legislation introduced in 1987, which itself was retrospective, so that it has effect as intended."

It's wholly exceptionally devious.

It's purpose was to create the illusion that these 2 forms of retrospection (1987 & 2008) are identical, but without explicitly saying so.

[smalldog]

Here's something wholly exceptional - it's from the BN66 press release:

"Legislation will be introduced in Finance Bill 2008 to clarify, retrospectively, legislation introduced in 1987, which itself was retrospective, so that it has effect as intended."

It's wholly exceptionally devious.

It's purpose was to create the illusion that these 2 forms of retrospection (1987 & 2008) are identical, but without explicitly saying so.

Sorry but I'm getting really hacked off with all this conjecture! Why aren't our side and their side slogging all this tulip out in a 4 sided room! This is really getting daft, time to start throwing punches I reckon