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

[Emigre]

Excellent - and I had a similar response from my Conservative MP too.

We need to keep on providing the information to keep this high on the agenda.

Grip.

Stating the obvious, but please keep forwarding these letters on to Whitehouse. Knowing who our "friends" are is extremely important just now.

Great work. Thank you.

[Descartes Dog]

Just signed up to NTRT

Hi everyone, to date I've been following things from the stands but now its time to get into play on the court .

Well done to everyone for getting NTRT off the ground and for all that has been done to date.

DD

[Fireship]

Hi everyone, to date I've been following things from the stands but now its time to get into play on the court .

Well done to everyone for getting NTRT off the ground and for all that has been done to date.

DD

Welcome DD, glad to have you aboard!!

[reckless]

Welcome

Hi everyone, to date I've been following things from the stands but now its time to get into play on the court .

Well done to everyone for getting NTRT off the ground and for all that has been done to date.

DD

Welcome on board DD. The NTRT team have certainly changed the run of play in this epic saga.

[smalldog]

I said this a long time back but when we win this we should have one giant celeb in a posh hotel!

[FredBasset]

Mr Gauke again

BBC News - Child benefit cuts: David Gauke decries 'fiscal nimbyism'

I actually agree with the sentiment of high earners losing child benefit. My parents didn't really need it whilst it made a huge difference to my wife's well being as a child in a single parent family after her father cleared off. For my part I can accept losing it.

However I cannot agree with a system where a couple can earn £49k each and keep child benefit but a couple where one earner makes £60k and the other looks after the children lose it. Gauke doesn't seem to comment on that situation while spouting his pious views about him and his lawyer wife just having to manage.

Sorry for an off topic rant but his hypocrisy brings out the worst in me.

Fred

[Emigre]

Hi everyone, to date I've been following things from the stands but now its time to get into play on the court .

Well done to everyone for getting NTRT off the ground and for all that has been done to date.

DD

Hi DD. Welcome to this thread and forum. It would be helpful if you could let us know a little bit about your circumstances.

1. Which promoter?
2. Years in the scheme?
3. Years for which enquiries opened?
4. Years for which CNs received?
5. Were all enquiries opened within the 12 month window?
5. Any unusual patterns of HMRC correspondence?

You do not need to post this here, and PM will not be available to you yet, so please feel free to contact Whitehouse direct. All of this is helpful to frame our complaints.

Many thanks

[shazbat]

Teachers paid by offshore firm

http:www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20157878
Be interesting to see how this is treated by Gauke...
Also, would you vote for anyone that looked like him? - I'm sure I wouldn't!

[Ninja]

Questions in the House yesterday

Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, Liberal Democrat)

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer

(1) how many closure notices HM Revenue and Customs issued in each tax year between 1989-90 and 2008-09, where relief had been claimed by the taxpayer using schemes later closed down by (a) section 62 of the Finance Act 1987 (No. 2), (b) sections 112 and 115 of the Income and Corporation Tax Act 1988, (c) section 59 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992, (d) section 858 of the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005 and (e) section 58 of the Finance Act 2008;

(2) how many people, in each tax year between 1989-90 and 2008-09, set up Isle of Man or other trusts that were used in schemes later shut down by (a) section 62 of the Finance Act 1987 (No. 2), (b) sections 112 and 115 of the Income and Corporation Tax Act 1988, (c) section 59 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992, (d) section 858 of the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005 and (e) section 58 of the Finance Act 2008;

(3) how many closure notices HM Revenue and Customs issued making (a) an adjustment and (b) no adjustment to a tax return, in each tax year between 1989-90 and 2008-09, in circumstances where relief had been claimed using schemes later closed down by (i) section 62 of the Finance Act 1987 (No. 2), (ii) sections 112 and 115 of the Income and Corporation Tax Act 1988, (iii) section 59 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992, (iv) section 858 of the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005 and (v) section 58 of the Finance Act 2008.

Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 5 November 2012, c446W)

David Gauke (Exchequer Secretary, HM Treasury; South West Hertfordshire, Conservative)

Section 62 Finance (No 2) Act 1987 and the later equivalent provisions referred to in the question retrospectively restored the important and well established principle that Double Taxation Treaties do not affect a UK resident's liability to UK tax on their income or gains.

Section 58 Finance Act 2008 was introduced when evidence emerged that a large number of people were using the schemes and in light of a number of factors (including the widespread use, aggressive nature and artificiality of the scheme, the deliberate attempt to avoid the aim of the 1987 legislation, and the need to ensure fairness and certainty for all taxpayers). The legislation put beyond doubt, again with retrospective effect, that the schemes did not work—and never had done.

Tax Returns: 5 Nov 2012: Hansard Written Answers and Statements - TheyWorkForYou

[Ninja]

Other Retro Tax

Bob Neill (Bromley & Chislehurst, Con) was railing against the injustice of retrospective taxes on 5 Nov.

"...On business rates, I urge my hon. Friends the Ministers not to be put off by some of the specious arguments from the Opposition. The previous Government have on their track record one of the worst examples of abuse of the business rates system to the detriment of small and medium-sized businesses that I have ever come across. They obdurately refused, in the face of overwhelming evidence, to remove an effectively retrospective tax on businesses in our ports, which put firms out of business and put British workers out of jobs, and caused serious British investors, such as DFDS Seaways and others, to rethink their UK investment plans. The previous Government did nothing about that despite having the clearest evidence in front of them. One of the first legislative acts of this Government reversed that injustice and safeguarded that important British business sector. I therefore hope my hon. Friends the Ministers will take no lectures on that from Labour..."

So there you go. The specific precident is set. Reversing unjust legislation of a previous administration with regard to retrospective taxation.

If it's unjust, then it's unjust. QED