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

[Emigre]

One great response received so far. Thank you.

This is an enquiry opened for 2006/07 in time, with an enquiry for 07/08 opened under discovery after the 12 month period and significantly, after s58 was enacted!

The SAR for 07/08 claimed the same relief as 06/07. Clearly, this person was "told throughout that the scheme did not work", lol.

Guys (and ladies) we need more examples of this type of thing. the more we have, the stronger our case and the stronger our complaint against HMRC.

Thank you. Friday is getting better. Happy weekend

[MajorGowen]

Previously Accepted SAR's

DR and another of the NTRT team are taking well earned vacations. Lots still going on and gearing up for another Parliamentary campaign now the Conference season is over. More news next week. We are still looking for more people who have had any of the following:

• SARs accepted by HMRC for years where DTA claim was made;
• Enquiries opened for years where DTA claim was made and HMRC closed enquiry with no amendment to SAR required
• Enquiries opened more than 12 months after SAR was submitted or for earlier years later than 31 January of the following year.

We have examples of all of the above, but the more we have, the less easy it is for HMRC to claim they were mistakes. If you are in one of the situations outlined please contact Whitehouse. No information provided will be used without your permission. Thank you

Hi Emigre,
My first SA when I was operating through the scheme was not challenged. The second one was challenged but they sent the challenge to the wrong address, so I was told that this was not a legal challenge. My next years was challenged. I then had a period out of the scheme, but went back through it just before it closed, when again my SR went unchallenged. All these years have subsequently been challenged using "Disclosure". In my mind by not challenging the first two years I was in the scheme told me that they accepted it, hence why I continued in the scheme.
PM me if you want further info.
MajorGowen.

[Buzby]

1987 Hansard

Just looked again at the words used by Norman lamont in 1987

This is in no sense a precedent for introducing in future legislation which is usually thought of as retrospective legislation, that is legislation involving people suddenly facing unexpected tax demands for past years.

Can this be used at the tax tribunal, or is it only the ombudsman that can review an act of parliament?

[BrilloPad]

Just looked again at the words used by Norman lamont in 1987


Can this be used at the tax tribunal, or is it only the ombudsman that can review an act of parliament?

I am going to use it at my tribunal.

[lucozade]

Starbucks!

I'm writing to my MP this morning having seen the news last night about Starbucks.

I'm inviting him to comment, via Mr Gauke, as to the possibility of whether retrospective taxation will be used in the case of Starbucks "over aggressive" manner of avoiding paying tax in the UK.

If indeed the treasury are not going to instigate this then I want to know why they continue to pursue the "2000" individuals whom do not have the wealth to pay nor the means to defend.

I want to make it clear that I feel this is entirely unfair and unjust in a democratic society.

I just have to come up with some decent wording.

[Lewis]

I'm writing to my MP this morning having seen the news last night about Starbucks.

I'm inviting him to comment, via Mr Gauke, as to the possibility of whether retrospective taxation will be used in the case of Starbucks "over aggressive" manner of avoiding paying tax in the UK.

If indeed the treasury are not going to instigate this then I want to know why they continue to pursue the "2000" individuals whom do not have the wealth to pay nor the means to defend.

I want to make it clear that I feel this is entirely unfair and unjust in a democratic society.

I just have to come up with some decent wording.

That was my first thought when I read the article on the BBC (although I was thinking more of IR35 to be honest). Be sure to also mention Facebook, Google and Amazon who are also avoiding massive amounts of UK tax. BBC News - Starbucks 'paid just £8.6m UK tax in 14 years'. Good luck with your fight.

[lucozade]

That was my first thought when I read the article on the BBC (although I was thinking more of IR35 to be honest). Be sure to also mention Facebook, Google and Amazon who are also avoiding massive amounts of UK tax. BBC News - Starbucks 'paid just £8.6m UK tax in 14 years'. Good luck with your fight.

I just fail to understand how these massive companies are allowed to avoid so much tax compared to the tiny amount they think they will get from us lot. Can you imagine how Google, Facebook and Amazon would react if HMRC tried retrospection on them!

It beggars belief!

[St Jude]

Also

That was my first thought when I read the article on the BBC (although I was thinking more of IR35 to be honest). Be sure to also mention Facebook, Google and Amazon who are also avoiding massive amounts of UK tax. BBC News - Starbucks 'paid just £8.6m UK tax in 14 years'. Good luck with your fight.

Don't forget Jimmy Carr and Gary Barlow!

[lucozade]

MP letter sent

Dear Mr Menzies,

It's been a while since we last spoke. My case with HMRC is still on going with regards S58 of 2008 Finance Bill and the use of retrospective taxation.

I remain very worried as to the future for my family.

I am interested to know whether you would write to the treasury asking for comment on whether they will be pursuing a retrospective taxation case against the coffee chain Starbucks?

BBC News - Starbucks 'paid just £8.6m UK tax in 14 years'

I note that sales from Starbucks have topped £3bn since 1998 and yet they have managed to only pay 1% in Corporation Tax.

In my case HMRC have said the justification for retrospection is in extreme cases where aggressive tax avoidance has been used.

This is surely much more aggressive than the scheme I was using!

I maintain that I feel unfairly targetted by the treasury. I risk loosing my house and do not have the means to defend myself against HMRC.

If HMRC are not going to consider retrospective taxation then can you ask Mr Gauke to explain why the scheme I used was more "aggressive" than that of Starbucks?

Indeed whilst Mr Gauke was in opposition he was totally against retrospective taxation and now that he has the power to do something about it he sticks by it. This is the kind of MP and Government I would find very hard to put trust in.

I look forward to hearing from you.

[Fireship]

I'm writing to my MP this morning having seen the news last night about Starbucks.

I'm inviting him to comment, via Mr Gauke, as to the possibility of whether retrospective taxation will be used in the case of Starbucks "over aggressive" manner of avoiding paying tax in the UK.

If indeed the treasury are not going to instigate this then I want to know why they continue to pursue the "2000" individuals whom do not have the wealth to pay nor the means to defend.

I want to make it clear that I feel this is entirely unfair and unjust in a democratic society.

I just have to come up with some decent wording.

Let’s not forget that Starbuck paid their "fair share" of taxes and acted within the law:

"We have paid and will continue to pay our fair share of taxes in full compliance with all UK tax laws, as we always have"

So Starbucks have been far more aggressive than us and actually have the balls to claim they paid their fair share!!! So how come HMRC see us a wholly exceptional case and not Starbucks??

HMRC knew exactly how much corporation tax Starbucks were paying as they’d been submitting accounts for years… You can use the argument that they contribute to the economy in other ways, i.e. employment, but how on earth can you argue that’s any different to what we’re doing? Any money I earned was injected back into the UK economy via taxes on spending and profit on any investments!

So if we’ve been described as aggressive then how does Starbucks compare in the minds of Gauke and HMRC?