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

[BrilloPad]

Retrospective taxation : section 58 of the Finance Act 2008 - Commons Library Standard Note - UK Parliament

It seems to provide a summary of HMRC arguments - have I missed something?

[Dieselpower]

House of Commons biased Research report on S58

It seems to provide a summary of HMRC arguments - have I missed something?

BP - It is supposed to be an unbiased report for any MP from any party to learn more about the situation - it does regretably omit very major facts that the Author MUST be aware of. He is thus being biased. If he continues to mislead in this fashion, he could be accused of misleading Parliament on quite a grand scale; a serious charge. Either the author is extremely naive, or he assumed we would never see it - I do not know. I am hoping that NTRT will take this grave matter up.

[Emigre]

BP - It is supposed to be an unbiased report for any MP from any party to learn more about the situation - it does regretably omit very major facts that the Author MUST be aware of. He is thus being biased. If he continues to mislead in this fashion, he could be accused of misleading Parliament on quite a grand scale; a serious charge. Either the author is extremely naive, or he assumed we would never see it - I do not know. I am hoping that NTRT will take this grave matter up.

I suspect that the author has not heard of NTRT. There is no reason why he would have. It may well be the case that the author has not therefore seen the facts that are now available.

I'm sure that when it is brought to his attention that a number of constituents have asked for some action from a number of MPs that does not get the benefit of a full briefing of what might be going on. Probably told to look at Hansard, the Huitson case and not much else.

I am sure that NTRT/Whitehouse will follow up with the author to appraise him of his somewhat partisan appraisal.

[TalkingCheese]

UBS tax avoidance accepted by Upper Tier Tax Tribunal...

... because it was legal !

Just seen this...

One in the Eye for HMRC - Contractor Weekly

"...During 2003, UBS used a trust company in Jersey called ESIP to pay over £100 million in bonuses..."

"...In upholding the Swiss bank's appeal the Upper Tax Tribunal (UTT) described the avoidance scheme as “technically sound”. The UTT also said, “In his oral submissions, [HMRC's lawyer] deployed a kaleidoscopic variety of arguments designed to persuade us, in one way or another, that the FTTT's conclusion on this part of the case, if not all of the reasoning by which the FTTT reached it, could and should be upheld. We admire his ingenuity, but are unpersuaded. In our judgment the FTTT's conclusion was in law an impossible one, and there is no proper basis for holding that the scheme fell outside the scope of [the special tax regime]...”

HMRC didnt get in quick enough with their use of retrospection on this one.

Parallels ?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

HMRC didnt get in quick enough with their use of retrospection on this one.

HMRC only use retrospection in exceptional circumstances.

(exceptional = over £200 million)

[Buzby]

timing

... because it was legal !

Just seen this...

One in the Eye for HMRC - Contractor Weekly

"...During 2003, UBS used a trust company in Jersey called ESIP to pay over £100 million in bonuses..."

"...In upholding the Swiss bank's appeal the Upper Tax Tribunal (UTT) described the avoidance scheme as “technically sound”. The UTT also said, “In his oral submissions, [HMRC's lawyer] deployed a kaleidoscopic variety of arguments designed to persuade us, in one way or another, that the FTTT's conclusion on this part of the case, if not all of the reasoning by which the FTTT reached it, could and should be upheld. We admire his ingenuity, but are unpersuaded. In our judgment the FTTT's conclusion was in law an impossible one, and there is no proper basis for holding that the scheme fell outside the scope of [the special tax regime]...”

HMRC didnt get in quick enough with their use of retrospection on this one.

Parallels ?

not only is the case interesting, but also the durations involved. UBS used the scheme in 2003, 7 years to get to the FTTT and then 2 years to get to upper tier tribunal.

[BrilloPad]

not only is the case interesting, but also the durations involved. UBS used the scheme in 2003, 7 years to get to the FTTT and then 2 years to get to upper tier tribunal.

But as there are more of us involved will it take longer?

When would the equivalent 9 year period start from for us? 2012?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

But as there are more of us involved will it take longer?

When would the equivalent 9 year period start from for us? 2012?

It was probably much easier for HMRC to lump everyone in the UBS scheme together under a single test case.

In our case, not only are there 2000 of us, but there are a lot of different individual circumstances. There are also several promoters to contend with.

By the way, it is exactly 8 months since the Supreme Court refused us, and PwC, leave to appeal, and HMRC haven't even started discussing test cases with the promoters yet. No-one has heard a peep out of them for ages.

Maybe they are plotting behind scenes but more likely

[BrilloPad]

It was probably much easier for HMRC to lump everyone in the UBS scheme together under a single test case.

Any idea who decides on the lumping? HMRC or us? Personally I want my own case - and I am calling Brannigan as my first witness.

Can I do the predictable "we are all individuals" joke please?

[Buzby]

FTTT

But as there are more of us involved will it take longer?

When would the equivalent 9 year period start from for us? 2012?

I would guess we went into the queue when supreme court refused appeal.

found this:

Figures obtained by Pinsent Masons showed that the number of cases heard by the First-tier tax tribunals reached a record high of 3,400 in the last three months of 2011. Overall, the number of new cases heard in 2011 was 20% higher than in 2010, at 11,000. In addition, the number of unheard cases rose from 16,700 at the end of 2010 to 22,100 at the end of 2011

so assuming they need to get through the backlog first, looks like a few years away.