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

[BrilloPad]

really? thats the first ive heard of it.. thats 50% of my liability..awsome if it pans out

You have years where you don't even have a 1970 section 9a notice? Nice!

[p4nd4b34r]

You have years where you don't even have a 1970 section 9a notice? Nice!

was only in for 2 years, first year was reopened due to discovery

[bananarepublic]

HMRC have already got their hands full taking 1900 through the tax courts. There is no way they will go looking for more.

In any case, they appear to have already started conceding that the enquiries they opened under discovery (after the 12-month enquiry window) were not valid.

Anyone who has not been investigated so far is almost certainly in the clear.

There seems to be an inconsistency here. The justification for discovery post S58 is that the tax payers involved were doing something illegal. The declaration on the tax return surely does not change this.

Presumably if this is the case we could use the scheme again and as long as they dont pick it up within the statutory period you would be in the clear.

Surely that is wrong and it is inconsistent to treat those affected by discovery and those not differently. That of course is the nonsense about retrospection.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Discovery

Montpelier has just recently received two separate letters from Special Investigations Manchester, completely out of the blue, accepting that enquiries for two clients should not have been opened under discovery.

This doesn't necessarily mean that they are about to concede all discoveries but it's certainly a step in that direction.

NB. the situation may be different in the case of clients who filed their own tax returns and didn't stick to the wording of the DTR claim provided by Montpelier.

[bananarepublic]

Discovery

Montpelier has just recently received two separate letters from Special Investigations Manchester, completely out of the blue, accepting that enquiries for two clients should not have been opened under discovery.

This doesn't necessarily mean that they are about to concede all discoveries but it's certainly a step in that direction.

NB. the situation may be different in the case of clients who filed their own tax returns and didn't stick to the wording of the DTR claim provided by Montpelier.

So these people described the exact mechanics of the scheme to avoid HMRC being able to claim there was no disclosure?

The thing that makes me so cross about s58 isn't the tax per se but the inconsistency of HMRC - the explicit acceptance of returns in 2006 and otherwise, Suo Motu settlement etc. It hardly constitutes fair and equal treatment does it.

Quite apart from the sheer dishonesty and non disclosure of HMRC and the fact that this has been deemed acceptable by the government.

If I had someone working for me who showed so little integrity I would be doing my best to get them sacked for misconduct. Has civil service ethics declined to the point where the end justifies the means?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

If I had someone working for me who showed so little integrity I would be doing my best to get them sacked for misconduct.

Whereas in HMRC they'd get a promotion!

[BS81]

Response to Request for Gauke to meet with NTRT

Apologies if this has already been posted.

I just received the response below from Gauke refusing to meet with NTRT. I have sent a copy on to DR.

Thank you for your letter bla bla...

It is important to understand that X chose to use a wholly artificial scheme in
order to avoid the tax he is due to pay as a resident of the UK upon his income earned in
the UK. The scheme was described as aggressive by the last Government when
introducing section 58, a description which is apt for a scheme which aimed to produce
an effective tax rate of around 5 per cent or less.

Users of the scheme, such as X, who were professionally advised, were aware
that HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) might challenge the scheme and that the outcome
of any such challenge was uncertain. Those seeking to avoid tax through aggressive
schemes such as this must accept the risk that the scheme they have chosen does not
work, and be prepared for the consequences.

HMRC does not accept that the information provided in the responses to the various
points raised by users of the scheme, such as your constituent, is either misleading or
inaccurate and nothing that I have received from X or other users of the scheme
gives me reason to believe otherwise. The previous Government gave full consideration
to the circumstances surrounding the use of this artificial scheme before concluding that
it was reasonable and proportionate to introduce retrospective legislation to put beyond
doubt that the scheme does not work. I do not propose to disturb this outcome.

In view of this, I do not feel that anything further can be usefully accomplished by
meeting with representatives of the No to Retro Tax campaign, a campaign whose only
purpose is the removal of legislation put in place in response to a wholly artificial tax
avoidance scheme. I must therefore decline X's invitation to do so.

Once again, please pass on my thanks bla bla...

[WavesAtPlay]

Hypocrisy or just doing his job?

"I am more convinced than ever that the retrospective nature of the clause is unacceptable."

Guess who said that?

I don't believe Gauke is prepared to meet with NTRT because he must know that he doesn't have a leg to stand on. His arguments are weak and mere rhetoric. Re-reading N002 David Gauke quotes, it makes you think that politicians such as Gauke are just acting out a part dictated to them by the likes of George Osborne or higher powers. To succeed in politics, you need to forget morals and ethics and do as you're told. That's what you get the honours and rewards for.

From a FOI request: "George Osborne is attending the Bilderberg conference in his official capacity as Chancellor of the Exchequer". It used to be that the elite attended Bilderberg on an unofficial capacity. It's interesting to note that it's now official, even although they are an unelected organisation, and nothing from the meetings ever makes the national press.

[BrilloPad]

The previous Government gave full consideration
to the circumstances surrounding the use of this artificial scheme before concluding that
it was reasonable and proportionate to introduce retrospective legislation to put beyond
doubt that the scheme does not work.

Bollux. Because the government were lied to and mislead by HMRC. Brannigan is a .

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Discovery

Montpelier has just recently received two separate letters from Special Investigations Manchester, completely out of the blue, accepting that enquiries for two clients should not have been opened under discovery.

This doesn't necessarily mean that they are about to concede all discoveries but it's certainly a step in that direction.

NB. the situation may be different in the case of clients who filed their own tax returns and didn't stick to the wording of the DTR claim provided by Montpelier.

A couple of minor points.

The letters actually came from the team in Middlesborough dealing with the scheme, not Manchester.

There was nothing different about these clients' circumstances than anyone else who received discovery enquiries, reinforcing the precedent this sets.