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

[andytp]

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

Thanks WelshRarebit. I did see that when reading through the new posts this morning, but in my rush to continue reading the good news it did not sink in. I will certainly repeat the postings etc and await further instruction on furthering the campaign.

andytp.

[normalbloke]

Whitehouse have worked their magic and the amendment to the Finance Bill has been tabled.

http://www.publications.parliament.u...bc1542504m.pdf

Massive well done to Whitehouse and NTRT. Let's hope the Finance Committee show the same cajones as those that supported the cross party letter.

[smalldog]

Do we know if the finance committee will be made aware of the cross party letter?

[foolishboy]

Do we know if the finance committee will be made aware of the cross party letter?

Both Nick Mills and Steve Baker are on the Finance Committee and were part of the Cross Party letter so we know that they will vote for the ammendment and I am sure they, along with Whitehouse, will let the other members of the committee know about its existance.

Fingers crossed. I assume a majority is required, anyone know the exact numbers?

[lucozade]

Both Nick Mills and Steve Baker are on the Finance Committee and were part of the Cross Party letter so we know that they will vote for the ammendment and I am sure they, along with Whitehouse, will let the other members of the committee know about its existance.

Fingers crossed. I assume a majority is required, anyone know the exact numbers?

Are they voting for the whole bill or do they have to vote for each amendment?

Found this:

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/...inanceno2.html

We have a long way to go yet.

[TalkingCheese]

Are they voting for the whole bill or do they have to vote for each amendment?

Each amendment I think. It is how the clause made it in back in 2008. Which is interesting because I believe that Gauke voted against it then (along with Cameron, Osborne et al) so he should be supporting the amendment this time round. If not it is an obvious and public u-turn.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Slight clarification

Each amendment I think. It is how the clause made it in back in 2008. Which is interesting because I believe that Gauke voted against it then (along with Cameron, Osborne et al) so he should be supporting the amendment this time round. If not it is an obvious and public u-turn.

The amendment being tabled now is the same as the one the Tories tabled in 2008.

At that time all Tories and Libdems voted "for". It was defeated by the Labour majority.

So yes, Gauke has already voted for this amendment. But that was then and he's not the same man as he was.

[Buzby]

Gauke's comments in 2008

Each amendment I think. It is how the clause made it in back in 2008. Which is interesting because I believe that Gauke voted against it then (along with Cameron, Osborne et al) so he should be supporting the amendment this time round. If not it is an obvious and public u-turn.

been quoted before, but incase anyone on the finance committee reads this, here is a section from the transcript of the debate on clause 55:

Mr. Gauke: Whereas on the previous clause we made our points in a probing manner, we do so here with much greater force. I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall. The retrospective nature of the clause is deeply troubling. We fully share the Government’s concern about the issue that it is trying to address. There is a problem with the arrangements and it is perhaps more than just a kink in the system, as the Economic Secretary put it. Trading profits derived from UK land are being received tax free by UK residents and domiciled individuals because of schemes involving the establishment of offshore trusts, specifically in the Isle of Man.
The existing legislation appears to deal with the issue where the UK residents or domiciled individuals are partners in the relevant offshore funds, but it does not seem to work where the partners are trusts and the UK individuals are benefiting from the arrangement. There is not a problem with trying to address that point, but there is a point of principle here. The proposal essentially states that the amendments contained in the clause are to be treated as always having had effect. Either the law exists or it does not. It is troubling when the Government state that the law in the past is something because that is what they say it is now. That is essentially what subsection (4) states.
This is partly an issue of simple democracy. It raises issues about EU law and legitimate expectations. I shall not pursue that point, but the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall is right to raise it. In part, it cuts to the question of the certainty and stability of the UK tax system. For investors, the idea that UK tax law is likely to be changed retrospectively is unattractive, and the UK is, for various reasons, acquiring a reputation for having an uncertain and unstable tax system, which is bad for the UK economy. ...


Mr. Gauke: Looking at that, we have stated that the provision should have effect only from 6 April 2008. On reflection, we have been unduly harsh on the Government and it would be reasonable to say 12 March 2008, which was the date of the Budget as opposed to the beginning of the financial year, but given that the proposal has a retrospective effect of 21 years, I am not sure that one month here or there will make much difference. If the Minister wants to reassure us and say that she will introduce proposals to change the retrospective nature of the measure to date it back to 12 March 2008, I would happily withdraw the amendment and accept that as a fair compromise

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Here's a further irony

Scroll down to "Clause 55" and look who was one of the Tory MPs that tabled the amendment back in 2008.

House of Commons Amendments

So, not only did Gauke vote for it then, he actually tabled the amendment.

Of course, that doesn't stop him being a complete hypocrite now.

[lucozade]

Scroll down to "Clause 55" and look who was one of the Tory MPs that tabled the amendment back in 2008.

House of Commons Amendments

So, not only did Gauke vote for it then, he actually tabled the amendment.

Of course, that doesn't stop him being a complete hypocrite now.

I feel sick.