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

[RingStinger]

I see Gauke is on the committee so thats 1 vote down already and possibly more if he can persuade them.

[Ninja]

Premature Exuberation

I see Gauke is on the committee so thats 1 vote down already and possibly more if he can persuade them.

I think that the NTRT team have done an outstanding job. Well done to all.

However, I will be keeping the champers on ice until the voting is finished.
I certainly won't then be accused of popping the cork too soon!

[RingStinger]

I think that the NTRT team have done an outstanding job. Well done to all.

However, I will be keeping the champers on ice until the voting is finished.
I certainly won't then be accused of popping the cork too soon!

Agree, hence the pessimistic nature of my post. Common sense would dictate that this gives Gauke the ideal opportnity to save face and get this abolished within the 4 walls of a committee. But not too much common sense has prevailed so far...

[Clownfish]

Would we then need to start again...?

I must say, 5 years on, I’m older and more jaded than ever.

SOME chance is better than NO chance, so that’s good and if I were in the UK I would petition the *%% out of my MP.

But to keep things a little more in balance... best case scenario, is this just back to square one?

I mean, if it did pass, do we really believe that HMRC would then just rollover and say OK, lets just re-do those from 2008 onward?

Are we going to then have to go back to the beginning with Huitson and re-argue in Court, on the original law one that Mont p initially were prepared to argue?

The understanding I gained from the court process is that the courts rule for one of the two arguments, based on the laws in place, the laws which are set by the government. If the law changes, does it need to be interpreted by the courts again?

Or am I just too much of a pessimist? I hope so... and I really have very little understanding of this entire thing, from the start. How we are all in this position is mind boggling.

NTRT team, DR, Whitehouse, can't express my thanks enough for still giving us this chance!

cf

[reckless]

What next

Have HMRC not then already shot themselves in the foot? If their original stated justification for Section 58 was that 'the current legislation is unclear', then even if they were stupid enough to continue their vindictive pursuit, they would be starting off on the back foot. Not to mention the need to close all existing investigations before re-opening them with a new reasoning. I would have thought that their bosses in the Treasury and Westminster would have had enough of their nonsense by then; with those responsible being reduced to the ranks or put out to grass.

Positive thinking required!

[andytp]

That really is great news and well done/thank you to all who have acheived this.

Having written and emailed my MP who is not on the Committee, what else can I do? Do I lobby him to talk to the committee members ?

andytp.

[WelshRarebit]

Whitehouse will be sending out an email to everyone shortly, advising how we can help rally support for the amendment.

As above, we should be hearing shortly on how best we can support the amendment.

[WelshRarebit]

Rob Barber: Retrospective legislation is an offence to justice and an enemy to growth

Whitehouse suggest it would be helpful if everyone could tweet, blog and re-post this article as appropriate.

In the meantime, it has been suggested we action the above.

[MMSguru]

Next Steps

As above, we should be hearing shortly on how best we can support the amendment.

Some thoughts that should (and I'm certain are) being considered by NTRT & Whitehouse:

1. Another NTRT briefing in the HoC, for finance committee members.
2. Everyone impacted by S58 could write directly to GO and DG.
3. Lobby our own MPs and ask them to support the amendment.

[lucozade]

I must say, 5 years on, I’m older and more jaded than ever.

SOME chance is better than NO chance, so that’s good and if I were in the UK I would petition the *%% out of my MP.

But to keep things a little more in balance... best case scenario, is this just back to square one?

I mean, if it did pass, do we really believe that HMRC would then just rollover and say OK, lets just re-do those from 2008 onward?

Are we going to then have to go back to the beginning with Huitson and re-argue in Court, on the original law one that Mont p initially were prepared to argue?

The understanding I gained from the court process is that the courts rule for one of the two arguments, based on the laws in place, the laws which are set by the government. If the law changes, does it need to be interpreted by the courts again?

Or am I just too much of a pessimist? I hope so... and I really have very little understanding of this entire thing, from the start. How we are all in this position is mind boggling.

NTRT team, DR, Whitehouse, can't express my thanks enough for still giving us this chance!

cf

This is the fundamental problem about changing the law backwards in time!