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

[BarneyCool]

My thoughts exactly!

One of Gauke's arguments was that it didn't matter whether the retro element was repealed or not as HMRC believed we would still be defeated under pre s58 law.
He said that repealing it would make no difference to us and we would have to pay either way therefore the retro was not actually harming anyone.

If Baker was not a patsy then he would have jumped on this and said, "well if it makes no difference then why was retro necessary at all and why not repeal it if they are going to end up paying anyway?"

I guess the NC1 patsy tactic was quite clever but it's astounding how badly it was executed. No counter arguments, no pressing to answer the questions, nothing. Just err... ok then just forget it.

They can get away with it because no one except us is going to hear that farce.
Compare that to the bickering of a televised commons debate.

I'd like to stick Paxman on Gauke.

If the retro element does not matter why not repeal it! Puts us all back on a level playing field.
The dice appear well and truly loaded against us. Another sleepless night.

[travellingknob]

Afraid I share your fears. Not sure i can now see how any appeal can do anything, if it were me arguing against us, I would say high courts say you're wrong, parliament has looked at the legislation twice and not over turned it.

Yep I agree, the Governments view isn't likely to get challenged again. What would be the point of debating this again next year when the subjects already been reviewed twice ? I cant see the same old ammendment being tabled again so it feels like this route is now closed unless theres other channels that people wiser than me know about.

That said, before everyone gets too negative and throws in the towel, we need to see what NTRT have to say. I for one haven't seen a bean said about what NTRTs strategy is outside of the ammendment, whether there is one or whether they feel they've achieved a goal in that retrospection is now very much questioned at all levels. Thats a success by itself, even the land tax schemes now being shut with retrospection applied are only being done back to when the chancellor gave a very clear warning. Its NTRTs pressure showing through in that announcement but of course most people here care only about section58(4) not the wider debate on retrospection in general.

I haven't seen any detailed report on NTRTs discussions with HMRC nor seen what their proposals were for satisfactory outcomes. What about supporting the tribunal, even just keeping us informed of how far its progressed is representing our interests. Montpellier aren't telling you, its NTRT keeping you informed ! This is why we should wait for NTRTs news letter. I hope a little more detail will be shared on the goals going forward, their proposals to HMRC (are those meetings even ongoing ?), and what we can realistically expect from the tribunal.

NTRT is an entity with really only one objective and thats achieving a satisfactory or at least a better outcome for those affected by section 58(4). The success they've clearly had in generating debate and awareness on the unfairness of retrospection in general is being missed by many on this forum but dont throw in the towel, NTRT are still representing your interests first and foremost and theres a lot more to this than an amendment

[TalkingCheese]

...whether there is one...

...This is why we should wait for NTRTs news letter...

There is very much a strategy and loads going on. Please wait for the newsletter. Where , to laymen like myself, the debate seemed very strange, the outcome was entirely expected.

[MrX]

Think about it...

There is very much a strategy and loads going on. Please wait for the newsletter. Where , to laymen like myself, the debate seemed very strange, the outcome was entirely expected.

I too was disappointed yesterday but I wasn't expecting anything. I listened to the debate and started to actually get quite excited. The arguments put forward by Mr. Baker and several other MPs started me thinking that we actually might get justice on this today. Even when Guake started talking, I wasn't too disappointed. His arguments were in line with his written correspondence…then Mr. Baker backed down straight away. Hmmm…

Having thought about this sensibly now, I clearly don't know about politics. Why would an MP (or anyone for that matter) who has gone to so much effort in getting this amendment this far back down on hearing something that he already knew? They would surely have removed it from the agenda in advance or at least not spoken at length about our plight. Also, I understand that when NC4 was asked to jump NC1, Mr. Baker spoke out saying basically that that was ok as long as we have a proper debate on NC1 today. Why would he do that if he didn't believe in this?

Think about it….there is some point to what happened today. I just don't know what that is yet and am looking forward to the NTRT response.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Hold your horses

Most people here admit that they don't understand how parliamentary debates work. So, why try and second guess, dream up conspiracy theories etc?

Yesterday's amendment could never (I repeat never) have been put to a free vote.

Why?

Because, in the case of a Finance Bill, it would have amounted to a motion of no confidence in the Government.

Please can I urge you to wait for the newsletter before jumping to conclusions.

Thanks
DR

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Please can everyone read this

I have been given kind permission to reproduce this letter from a Government Minister.

Note the use of the word "repeatedly" in the final sentence.

Dear Mr xxxxxx,

Thank you for your letter of 12th June. You are absolutely right that NC1, tabled by Steve Baker and supported by Dominic Raab, directly addresses the issue of retrospectivity which was the substance of your son’s case.

I should perhaps explain that, unless there is something of a Damascene conversion on the part of the Treasury, it is unlikely that the new clause will be accepted as such into the Finance Bill, or indeed that there will be a division on it. No government would allow a free vote on an amendment to the Finance Bill, however worthy, in that to lose such a vote would be tantamount to a motion of no confidence in the government.

What it does do, however, is to give an opportunity for those members who are interested to rehearse the arguments in the hope that the minister will be persuaded to take government action to correct the anomaly at Report stage of the bill, or in subsequent legislation, and I suspect that is Mr Baker’s intention. Those who support the amendment will, I am sure, be providing briefing to other members of the committee to secure their support in debate on June 20th.

In my experience the case for such a change needs to be made repeatedly, but the Treasury and its ministers are not immovable in the face of a strong well-grounded argument well made.

Yours sincerely,

[smalldog]

There is very much a strategy and loads going on. Please wait for the newsletter. Where , to laymen like myself, the debate seemed very strange, the outcome was entirely expected.

hi TC, sure there is another tack. Obviously difficult not to get slightly disheartened when we all hoped it would go through no matter how slim, but as I think most of us have said look forward to what NTRT say is next step.

[andytp]

Although there was always a hope, I had no expectation of it's success, but was very surprised that it didn't even go to a vote. However it does give me some solace to think that this was always the expected outcome and that it was part of the bigger plan. Before this I had no understanding of the way the politics works and now am even more unsure. I do think we owe Mr Baker some gratitude, despite the surprising end to proceedings, for without him at least venturing his neck towards the proverbial chopping block we wouldn't have even had the "debate" at all.

Andytp.

[ALMAC]

On the rollercoaster again

I have been given kind permission to reproduce this letter from a Government Minister.

Note the use of the word "repeatedly" in the final sentence.

It would appear that some people were aware and expected the outcome yesterday and many did not.

I have not seen any correspondence from NTRT since 16/04/2013 and probably like many others had my hopes raised for some outcome from yesterdays meeting.

Certainly at no time has anyone communicated to me that it had no chance of going through and I am left feeling a bit foolish.

Whilst I am aware that not all information can always be divulged, it would appear that if our side of the camp were aware that this had no chance of going through, then this must have also been obvious to the opposition, therefore it surely can have been to no detriment to let us know that this was the likely outcome instead of having our hopes raised to be dashed once again.

I sincerely hope that this exercise has been in some way fruitful and hope that there is some way that we can be kept a little more enlightened.

I am not knocking the efforts of NTRT and fully understand the time and commitment that people are are putting in our behalf and will always continue to support this. I also hope that you can understand the frustration of those of us who are not fully in possession of all of facts of what is happening behind the scenes.

I hope that everyone can gather themselves together to fight on and once again would like to thank those who are putting themselves "out there" on our behalf.

[NigelJK]

Don't know if anyone is aware but HMRC are under Private Eye's spotlight. A couple of years ago they sold off a bunch of the (publicly owned) buildings they inhabit to Mapely, an offshore for tax reasons company.

Do this google search: hmrc sold buildings private eye

and look for the 'Mapely in the news'

I have no idea how to get that link to work in this post.