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

[redkieran]

So apparently it's perfectly acceptable to legally avoid tax providing your are contribution so much to the economy. Where in the taxation laws does it say that?

That's how the Google boss has defended his companies tax record in the UK!

It is perfectly acceptable to legally avoid tax. Isn't that our argument?

[TalkingCheese]

It is perfectly acceptable to legally avoid tax. Isn't that our argument?

Absolutely ! That is why we have the law and that is why changing the law retrospectively in this way is morally repugnant ! (not to say life threatening!)

[lucozade]

It is perfectly acceptable to legally avoid tax. Isn't that our argument?

Indeed. However, Google spun it as being ok because of what they bring to the economy.

[reckless]

Contribution to the economy

Indeed. However, Google spun it as being ok because of what they bring to the economy.

Whereas thousands of self employed contractors who put in a full shift each day, design and create useful products and services, support their families, actually pay corporation tax and VAT, and do not require to sponge off the state, actually contribute nothing!!

I see the difference now. Quite obvious when you think about it.

[BigBlackDog]

Fabian Hamilton is still supporting us

I noticed my MP is no longer a member of the Finance Bill Committee, but emailed him to confirm he us still supporting our campaign. Here is his response:-


Finance Bill Committee members do vary from Bill to Bill but as I am no longer a member of the Shadow Treasury Team, I didn't think I would be on this Bill Committee.

Of course you may rely on my continued support – an injustice is always an injustice and as I have previously told you, I am strongly opposed to any form of retrospective legislation.

With best wishes,

Fabian Hamilton
Labour Member of Parliament for Leeds North East

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Whitehouse

If you are waiting for a response from Whitehouse please can you cut them some slack. Over the next 2-3 weeks all of their focus will be on the finance bill amendment.

This may be our last chance to table such an amendment, so I hope you will all understand why this has to take priority over everything else at the moment.

Thank you for your patience.

DR

[honeyridges]

Or so you think....

Anyone seen this? An interesting article and I think most will agree with the gist of it - but it appears the author has not been following this forum: The tax avoidance arms race is MAD: mitigation, avoidance and disclosure


Excerpt:
Governments draw the line at retrospective tax legislation. So far.

Historical precedent shows us that governments can legislate at will and there is little taxpayers can do about it. In theory, the Treasury could decide that all income splitting by married couples is unacceptable and, via parliament, force through legislation saying that the settlements legislation does apply to spouses and civil partners who should all now pay taxes, penalties and interest going back six years.

It would be like the government deciding that, as of a month ago, the speed limit on the motorways was 60 miles per hour (mph), and then prosecuting everyone ‘caught’ going over 60 by a speed camera in the last 31 days.

Fortunately, in the interests of a stable tax regime with mostly compliant taxpayers, even the most overzealous Chancellor has yet to impose genuinely retrospective tax legislation. ()

So, in the arms race which is the tax avoidance industry, the Treasury can only prevent taxpayers from benefitting going forward, and cannot go back in time. This also means that contractors joining schemes that are legal at the point of joining, and leaving when the scheme is closed down, do not have to fear retrospective taxation.

[Ninja]

Anyone seen this? An interesting article and I think most will agree with the gist of it - but it appears the author has not been following this forum: The tax avoidance arms race is MAD: mitigation, avoidance and disclosure


Excerpt:
Governments draw the line at retrospective tax legislation. So far.

Historical precedent shows us that governments can legislate at will and there is little taxpayers can do about it. In theory, the Treasury could decide that all income splitting by married couples is unacceptable and, via parliament, force through legislation saying that the settlements legislation does apply to spouses and civil partners who should all now pay taxes, penalties and interest going back six years.

It would be like the government deciding that, as of a month ago, the speed limit on the motorways was 60 miles per hour (mph), and then prosecuting everyone ‘caught’ going over 60 by a speed camera in the last 31 days.

Fortunately, in the interests of a stable tax regime with mostly compliant taxpayers, even the most overzealous Chancellor has yet to impose genuinely retrospective tax legislation. ()

So, in the arms race which is the tax avoidance industry, the Treasury can only prevent taxpayers from benefitting going forward, and cannot go back in time. This also means that contractors joining schemes that are legal at the point of joining, and leaving when the scheme is closed down, do not have to fear retrospective taxation.

Has anyone put the author, Mr David Colom, straight about the facts regarding retro legislation?

[lucozade]

Has anyone put the author, Mr David Colom, straight about the facts regarding retro legislation?

Twitter: @davidjcolom

Tweet sent.

[Ninja]

Tweet

Twitter: @davidjcolom

Tweet sent.

Nice one