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

[Fireship]

And just to get your blood boiling, interesting article in today's Sunday Times: "HMRC consultants pay only 3.5% tax".

Basically, Accenture who undertake work for HMRC have reduced their tax bill to 3.5%. Their accounts disclose that they have paid no UK corporation tax in the previous 2 years despite more than £180M of profits.

I can't reproduce the article here due to copyright/access issues, but I think you get the general idea.

As per usual HMRC adopt one rule for us and another for the big boys – excuse me for being a bit thick but can Hector please explain how that fits with HMRC’s fair and proportionate mantra??

[Ninja]

Advertising Standards

I've just walked past two poster boards wih adverts posted by HMRC on them. I note that HMRC PR spending wasn't mentioned as part of what taxes are spent on in the letter sent yesterday.

Apart form this, the tag line struck me:

"If you've declared your income, you've nothing to fear"

Since I FULLY DECLARED my income, and now HMRC are chasing me for many thousands of pounds 8 years later, do I have a case for taking them to the advertising standards authority?

Yes, most definitely!

[lucozade]

New reply from MP

My MP has been supportive and continues to be. Whilst he wouldn't directly table some parliamentary question he has agreed to write to Mr Gauke asking some additional choice questions thanks to Liane @ Whitehouse.

The fight continues.

I have one question for the masses. If you just so happened to have a british sports car sitting in your garage appreciating in value which you owed nothing on. In the event of disaster would you be forced to sell this to cover some of the liability and therefore would it be better to own cars on finance?

[BS81]

My MP has been supportive and continues to be. Whilst he wouldn't directly table some parliamentary question he has agreed to write to Mr Gauke asking some additional choice questions thanks to Liane @ Whitehouse.

The fight continues.

I have one question for the masses. If you just so happened to have a british sports car sitting in your garage appreciating in value which you owed nothing on. In the event of disaster would you be forced to sell this to cover some of the liability and therefore would it be better to own cars on finance?

If you owned it I think they could force you to sell it. It would be best to lease. That way the car is never yours so they can't touch it.

[screwthis]

If you owned it I think they could force you to sell it. It would be best to lease. That way the car is never yours so they can't touch it.

Cheaper not to finance; especially in the event the money never actually becomes payable.

Wait until the time comes and finance it then.

[lucozade]

If you owned it I think they could force you to sell it. It would be best to lease. That way the car is never yours so they can't touch it.

That was my thinking. So I'm best cashing in on the car now and buying something else on a lease. Of coarse this is all hypothetical and speaking on behalf of a friend, etc,etc.

[Ninja]

Yesterday in Commons

Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green, Conservative)

“To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of claims for double taxation relief accepted by HM Revenue and Customs which were made under schemes that were later closed down by the application of the provisions of section 58 of the Finance Act 2008.”

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

“UK residents are taxable on their worldwide income wherever it arises, including situations where it arises by way of foreign partnerships. Section 58 of Finance Act 2008 was enacted to help put that beyond doubt and in so doing, made clear that a wholly artificial tax avoidance scheme involving a foreign partnership comprised of foreign trustees did not work.

HMRC is aware that inquiries into fewer than five scheme users who used the scheme for several years had a closure notice issued with no amendment. The closure notices were issued in error and related to only one of the years under inquiry in each case. I am unable to give a more precise figure as it would breach HMRC's duty of confidentiality. HMRC is unaware of any other cases where a scheme-user's claim to double tax relief was investigated and then a closure notice was issued which referred to the scheme and made no amendment.”

Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 26 November 2012, c71W)

Double Taxation: 26 Nov 2012: Hansard Written Answers and Statements - TheyWorkForYou

[BS81]

Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green, Conservative)

“To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of claims for double taxation relief accepted by HM Revenue and Customs which were made under schemes that were later closed down by the application of the provisions of section 58 of the Finance Act 2008.”

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

“UK residents are taxable on their worldwide income wherever it arises, including situations where it arises by way of foreign partnerships. Section 58 of Finance Act 2008 was enacted to help put that beyond doubt and in so doing, made clear that a wholly artificial tax avoidance scheme involving a foreign partnership comprised of foreign trustees did not work.

HMRC is aware that inquiries into fewer than five scheme users who used the scheme for several years had a closure notice issued with no amendment. The closure notices were issued in error and related to only one of the years under inquiry in each case. I am unable to give a more precise figure as it would breach HMRC's duty of confidentiality. HMRC is unaware of any other cases where a scheme-user's claim to double tax relief was investigated and then a closure notice was issued which referred to the scheme and made no amendment.”

Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 26 November 2012, c71W)

Double Taxation: 26 Nov 2012: Hansard Written Answers and Statements - TheyWorkForYou

So HMRC are aware that they closed around 5 where the scheme was used for "several years".

There is no acknowledgement (or denial) that more were closed for people who did not use the scheme for "several years" (e.g. 1 or 2 years etc. depending on what Gauke's definition of "several" means).

[CanPayButWouldRatherNot]

good work on the newsletter folks ... roll on 2013 !!

[lucozade]

Todays newletter

Once again a big thank you to all those involved in the campaign. Another good newsletter to perk me up.

Invitation sent to my MP.
Additional donation sent.
Impact Assessment completed.