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

[LandRover]

GAAR 2013 Finance Bill (likely July)

Any thoughts on GAAR and this bit of news?

The GAAR Interim Advisory Panel » Tax Research UK

Richard Murphy has strong views on avoidance planning...but took the role he was offered.

[Disgusted of Coventry]

The whole purpose of BN66 was to avoid a court hearing, which they knew they would have lost hands down. The 1987 legislation was absolutely clear and it only applied to partners.

No, their rewriting of history was designed to mislead Parliament.

Sure, but these deceptions flowed through to High Court testimony, complete with signed Statements of Truth no less.

Maybe it's just my ignorance speaking but, even though misleading Parliament is appalling, lying to the High Court is surely off the scale.

[SantaClaus]

Sure, but these deceptions flowed through to High Court testimony, complete with signed Statements of Truth no less.

Maybe it's just my ignorance speaking but, even though misleading Parliament is appalling, lying to the High Court is surely off the scale.

Yep, we call it perjury in High Court, and treason in Parliament (because the Finance Bill received Royal Assent and hence the Queen was deceived).

Hope you are listening HMRC.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Sure, but these deceptions flowed through to High Court testimony, complete with signed Statements of Truth no less.

Maybe it's just my ignorance speaking but, even though misleading Parliament is appalling, lying to the High Court is surely off the scale.

There is no doubt that HMRC's witness statements contained untruths. For example, they were adamant that they never accepted use of the scheme, which we know to be untrue. However, they now say that the DTR claims were accepted by mistake and that this only came to light recently ie. they didn't know this at the time they gave evidence.

The courts never considered whether Parliament had been misled. This is a matter for Parliament itself and it is not within the jurisdiction of the courts. Hence the remit of the NTRT campaign.

[reckless]

Yep, we call it perjury in High Court, and treason in Parliament (because the Finance Bill received Royal Assent and hence the Queen was deceived).

Hope you are listening HMRC.

Treason; now that is a serious offence. It brings to mind thoughts of Traitors' Gate and the Tower of London. That would be a fitting fate for Mr B. and his cohorts.

[OnYourBikeGB]

There is no doubt that HMRC's witness statements contained untruths. For example, they were adamant that they never accepted use of the scheme, which we know to be untrue. However, they now say that the DTR claims were accepted by mistake and that this only came to light recently ie. they didn't know this at the time they gave evidence.

The courts never considered whether Parliament had been misled. This is a matter for Parliament itself and it is not within the jurisdiction of the courts. Hence the remit of the NTRT campaign.

So if someone makes a mistake on their tax return, and then Hector come after that person, all they have to do is point out that point out that they didn't know it was a mistake at the time, Hector will simply smile and say 'no problem, don't worry about any fines or penalties or interest, after all, mistakes happen.', or does that sort of logic only work one way? Oh … hang on, I think I know the answer …

Those HMRC witnesses should be made to pay the same penalty as anyone else in that situation. If they are going to make statements, under oath, that could destroy the lives of thousands, then they should have been certain. They're either incompetent or liars or both.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

So if someone makes a mistake on their tax return, and then Hector come after that person, all they have to do is point out that point out that they didn't know it was a mistake at the time, Hector will simply smile and say 'no problem, don't worry about any fines or penalties or interest, after all, mistakes happen.', or does that sort of logic only work one way? Oh … hang on, I think I know the answer …

Those HMRC witnesses should be made to pay the same penalty as anyone else in that situation. If they are going to make statements, under oath, that could destroy the lives of thousands, then they should have been certain. They're either incompetent or liars or both.

Both.

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for an honest man to work for HMRC Special Investigations.

[travellingknob]

Both.

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for an honest man to work for HMRC Special Investigations.

Its easy to lie when your not held to account. Its easy to be incompetent when your part of a massive organisation. Bankers are the ideal example of inappropriate actions in the pursuit of bonuses.

I also observe that Branigan is still in charge of this investigation, its not been reassigned to another person despite the questions NTRT are raising. Most corporates would have side shifted the person in charge by now and put someone else in charge of reviewing the case and sorting out the mess. I think thats the problem with HMRC, they have immense power to wreck individuals lives and carry without any accountability.

[travellingknob]

I do wonder if there was a HMRC most wanted list, WG must have been at the top of that for some time, why are they singling out Montpelier for this very bitter war (of which we were one of the skirmishes)

Thats certainly how it looks. I wonder how WG handles the stress. I couldn't

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I also observe that Branigan is still in charge of this investigation, its not been reassigned to another person despite the questions NTRT are raising.

Actually, although the letters come from Brannigan, he is not in charge. It's a guy called MacDougall above him. MacDougall was the one who gave evidence to the High Court.

There was a change of personnel back in 2006 when the investigation moved from Liverpool to Manchester but, you are right, since then it's been the same folks (mis)handling things.

Do you want to know something else that's a joke. Our complaint against HMRC, as an organisation, was responded to by none other than the guy in charge of the whole fiasco - MacDougall. Needless to say he couldn't see any wrong doing.