• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

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

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Not plain sailing

    Saw my MP yesterday who is on the Finance Committee and Labour. She was supremely negative about the issue. Said it was probably just a probing amendment that would not see the light of day. If it did she would vote as she was told by the party. She was also critical of one of her colleagues who is a signatory on the joint letter to Osborne saying he was speaking out of turn from his position in the Shadow Cabinet. She said our only chance was ECHR (which of course needs no involvement from our own politicians) No interest in the HMRC misleading her own party nor the question of retrospective law-making - everything over-ridden by the convenient 'moral' position of avoidance = tax dodging = those bad people = political expedience

    I'm very close to another lobbying scenario and I've got to say when you see politics and politicians up close and having a direct impact on your life and livelihood it throws a very depressing light on the nature of our democracy and rule of law.

    i can't get away from the shortsightedness of these people. Conservatively there are 2000 of us providing key technology services to the UK economy - assuming now we're all working through limited companies - on an average year we will contribute £40m to the Exchequer in VAT and £80m in income tax, year in, year out. Some of us will have companies with employees. We then spend the rest and generate other income in the economy. Bankrupt us, we can't work, we can't be directors, our skills, experience and talent is removed from the UK economy. Consider how many column inches are devoted to Quantitative Easing - our politicians here are seizing the opportunity to do the opposite.

    Comment


      Originally posted by Henrik View Post
      Saw my MP yesterday who is on the Finance Committee and Labour. She was supremely negative about the issue. Said it was probably just a probing amendment that would not see the light of day. If it did she would vote as she was told by the party. She was also critical of one of her colleagues who is a signatory on the joint letter to Osborne saying he was speaking out of turn from his position in the Shadow Cabinet. She said our only chance was ECHR (which of course needs no involvement from our own politicians) No interest in the HMRC misleading her own party nor the question of retrospective law-making - everything over-ridden by the convenient 'moral' position of avoidance = tax dodging = those bad people = political expedience

      I'm very close to another lobbying scenario and I've got to say when you see politics and politicians up close and having a direct impact on your life and livelihood it throws a very depressing light on the nature of our democracy and rule of law.

      i can't get away from the shortsightedness of these people. Conservatively there are 2000 of us providing key technology services to the UK economy - assuming now we're all working through limited companies - on an average year we will contribute £40m to the Exchequer in VAT and £80m in income tax, year in, year out. Some of us will have companies with employees. We then spend the rest and generate other income in the economy. Bankrupt us, we can't work, we can't be directors, our skills, experience and talent is removed from the UK economy. Consider how many column inches are devoted to Quantitative Easing - our politicians here are seizing the opportunity to do the opposite.
      Hi Henrik,

      Are you a member? I tried looking up your username but couldn't find it.

      Please get back to Whitehouse regarding this. They will be able to tell you how do deal with this and there may be others who have the same MP and can add additional pressure.

      Regards

      Santa
      'Orwell's 1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual'. -
      Nick Pickles, director of Big Brother Watch.

      Comment


        Originally posted by Henrik View Post
        Saw my MP yesterday who is on the Finance Committee and Labour. She was supremely negative about the issue. Said it was probably just a probing amendment that would not see the light of day. If it did she would vote as she was told by the party. She was also critical of one of her colleagues who is a signatory on the joint letter to Osborne saying he was speaking out of turn from his position in the Shadow Cabinet. She said our only chance was ECHR (which of course needs no involvement from our own politicians) No interest in the HMRC misleading her own party nor the question of retrospective law-making - everything over-ridden by the convenient 'moral' position of avoidance = tax dodging = those bad people = political expedience

        I'm very close to another lobbying scenario and I've got to say when you see politics and politicians up close and having a direct impact on your life and livelihood it throws a very depressing light on the nature of our democracy and rule of law.

        i can't get away from the shortsightedness of these people. Conservatively there are 2000 of us providing key technology services to the UK economy - assuming now we're all working through limited companies - on an average year we will contribute £40m to the Exchequer in VAT and £80m in income tax, year in, year out. Some of us will have companies with employees. We then spend the rest and generate other income in the economy. Bankrupt us, we can't work, we can't be directors, our skills, experience and talent is removed from the UK economy. Consider how many column inches are devoted to Quantitative Easing - our politicians here are seizing the opportunity to do the opposite.
        Strangely enough, this might work for us. If she's Labour and she's towing the party line, they might love the chance to embarrass Gauke, and in effect turn would have been a 'No' vote into a 'Yes'. Not the kind of full-hearted, courageous vote we'd have liked, but this is politics after all.

        Comment


          Seems so apt ... what next retrospective corporation tax?

          And today Mr Schmidt told BBC Radio 4's Start The Week: "What we are doing is legal. I'm rather perplexed by this debate, which has been going in the UK for quite some time because I view taxes as not optional. I view that you should pay the taxes that are legally required.

          "It's not a debate. You pay the taxes.

          "If the British system changes the tax laws then we will comply. If the taxes go up we will pay more, if they go down we will pay less. That is a political decision for the democracy that is the UK."

          "At least under American law, we have a fiduciary responsibility to our shareholders to account for things properly, so if we were, for example, to just arbitrarily decide to pay a different tax rate than we were required to, a more favourable one for example to a particular country, how would we account for that?

          "Somehow these questions are ignored in the debate. We are very happy with whatever the countries all come to agreement on. We are not particularly upset about it.

          Comment


            It's all bullcrap.

            No-one complained about Google's tax affairs a few years ago.

            They didn't create the mess this country is in now but all of a sudden they are the convenient whipping boy.

            Fast forward a few years (if/when the economy improves) and the politicians will go back to not caring about tax, and will find something else to divert the masses from their own ineptitude.

            In the mean time it's a case of "don't blame us cos things are totally fvcked; blame Google, Starbucks, Jimmy Carr and those BN66ers".

            Comment


              Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View Post
              It's all bullcrap.

              No-one complained about Google's tax affairs a few years ago.

              They didn't create the mess this country is in now but all of a sudden they are the convenient whipping boy.

              Fast forward a few years (if/when the economy improves) and the politicians will go back to not caring about tax, and will find something else to divert the masses from their own ineptitude.

              In the mean time it's a case of "don't blame us cos things are totally fvcked; blame Google, Starbucks, Jimmy Carr and those BN66ers".
              http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct...47008514,d.d2k

              Well worth a read. Guess which country has the largest network of offshore tax havens in the world, making vast amounts for the Exchequer? Umm ... that'd be the morally repugnant UK wouldn't it?
              Last edited by OnYourBikeGB; 28 May 2013, 00:11.

              Comment


                Gamekeeper turned poacher - Reward for alleged Failure

                Former Revenue boss lands tax-advice job at Deloitte
                Dave Hartnett, once Britain’s leading tax official and who has been accused of agreeing “sweetheart” deals, has joined accountancy firm Deloitte, which has been caught up in the tax avoidance claims.
                In his new role at Deloitte, Mr Hartnett will be “providing advice to overseas tax administrations and governments”. By Rebecca Clancy
                11:37PM BST 27 May 2013
                25 Comments
                Until last year, Mr Hartnett headed operations at HM Revenue and Customs. His new role will involve him working one day a week at Deloitte, which acts as auditor for companies – including Starbucks – which have been accused of using legal loopholes to avoid paying tax.

                The appointment was approved by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, subject to six conditions set out by the advisory committee on business appointments.

                In a statement, the committee said that in his role Mr Hartnett would be “providing advice to overseas tax administrations and governments”.

                The rules of the appointment state that Mr Hartnett will not be able to lobby the Government on behalf of Deloitte for at least a year, and he can have “no involvement in discussions with other fiscal authorities of UK’s confidential tax policy where he has been involved in that area of work in HMRC”.

                Also he cannot “draw on privileged information” from his time at the Revenue, nor advise “any taxpayer that he has been involved with” during his time at HMRC.

                Related Articles
                HMRC cleared over Goldman 'sweetheart' deal
                16 May 2013
                HMRC cleared over 'sweetheart' tax deals
                14 Jun 2012
                Four 'sweetheart' tax deals raised £4.5bn
                29 Apr 2013
                Ex-tax chief to advise on HSBC crackdown
                30 Jan 2013
                Tax chief urged to quit over £25m 'sweetheart deals'
                21 Dec 2011
                Profile: Dave Hartnett, HMRC
                12 Oct 2011
                The committee also noted that “Mr Hartnett did have official dealings with Deloitte, and that he also dealt with a wide range of major accountancy and law firms during his time in HMRC and the Inland Revenue before that”.

                The appointment came weeks after Britain’s highest court ruled that Mr Hartnett had taken into consideration “irrelevant” information when agreeing a "sweetheart" deal with US bank Goldman Sachs, which let the firm off paying £20m in tax. The court found that the deal was lawful, but added that it was “not a glorious episode in the history of the Revenue”.

                Since leaving his post at HMRC, Mr Hartnett has joined HSBC as part of its crackdown on financial crime following its $1.9bn (£1.2bn) money-laundering settlement.

                He is part of the committee and independent monitor that was ordered by the previous financial regulator, the Financial Services Authority, to oversee anti-money laundering activities after the alleged breaches.

                Comment


                  Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View Post
                  Following on from yesterday's newsletter.

                  There will be another email sent out either today or Monday, with specific guidance on lobbying your MP to support the amendment.

                  Regards
                  DR
                  Are we still waiting for this? I'm not sure as I haven't received the email yet.

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by WelshRarebit View Post
                    Are we still waiting for this? I'm not sure as I haven't received the email yet.
                    Yes, sorry I should have posted to say it had been delayed.

                    I'm not sure exactly when it will go out but it's definitely coming.

                    Comment


                      Gauke and HMRC are thick as thieves

                      Goldman Sachs tax deal: minister backed plan to challenge whistleblower | Politics | The Guardian

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X