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

[Boycie]

Wasn't the protocol that Gauke is referring to introduced some time after S58(4)??

I picked up on this too. He referred to protocol, or government policy / tax policy /strategy which was all developed after S58(4).

Yes I know they have a time-machine - didn't realise they would repeatedly use it. Can I have one of these time-machines?

[Rhydd]

Interest on tax that was only made payable retrospectively

Gauke repeated the untruth that S58 was "clarification". We know that it wasn't - in the Huitson judgement, the judge stated "On 21 July 2008 s58 of the 2008 Act came into force. It amended, with retrospective effect, the existing legislation in s.858 of the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005."

Two points.

1) The Huitson judgement said that the government has the power to enact legislation retrospectively. I am not sure that it went on to say that having changed a law retrospectively that it had the right to charge interest on tax that wasn't originally payable.

2) During the expenses scandal, many MPs said that they believed that they had been acting correctly within the rules as they stood in the past. When they repaid expenses that were subsequently deemed improper, I don't think that they paid interest on the historic over-claim.

Any attempt to charge s58 victims interest on tax that was made payable only retrospectively is a shameful abuse of power.

[Buzby]

due process

The thing you have to bear in mind is that everything Gauke/HMRC say now is designed to justify S58 after the fact.

For example, apparently we would have lost in court anyway so bankruptcy would have been the outcome with or without S58.

"HMRC’s clear view is that the change introduced by section 58 was a clarification and that, although potentially more protracted and costly, litigation on the basis of the pre-section 58 legislation would ultimately show that the scheme failed. Whichever legislative route is involved, the tax avoided and the amount outstanding would be the same"

Is this the first time this has been said 'litigation on the basis of the pre-section 58 legislation would ultimately show that the scheme failed'

Is the government admitting it didn't follow due process?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Is this the first time this has been said 'litigation on the basis of the pre-section 58 legislation would ultimately show that the scheme failed'

Is the government admitting it didn't follow due process?

I don't know but it's a bloody liberty.

[smalldog]

I don't know but it's a bloody liberty.

Where does that argument end. "Well we knew you would be guilty so we didnt bother trying you for murder, saves us a few quid in expensive litigation"

[screwthis]

Where does that argument end. "Well we knew you would be guilty so we didnt bother trying you for murder, saves us a few quid in expensive litigation"

If that's not a human rights breach, I don't know what is.

[Disgusted of Coventry]

Statistics

In the debate, Gauke said:

HMRC has identified around 2,200 individuals who used the arrangements on which section 58 is focused. I am aware that the campaign group seeking repeal of the retrospective aspect of section 58 invited campaign members to complete a questionnaire detailing the effect on them of their use of the scheme; it was explained to members that the information would be used in discussions with the Treasury, the Public Accounts Committee and the Treasury Committee. Around 150 members responded, which represents about 7% of the people identified by HMRC as scheme users. There is no evidence to suggest that the views expressed by that small proportion of scheme users represent anything other than those of the individuals concerned.

It's only a small point, but this statement is extremely slippery. I'm pretty sure that 7% is a perfectly respectable sample size for statistical analysis.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

In the debate, Gauke said:


It's only a small point, but this statement is extremely slippery. I'm pretty sure that 7% is a perfectly respectable sample size for statistical analysis.

The truth is they don't care how many people will be ruined but, rather than admit that, it's easier to just cast doubt on the survey.

Client facing staff at Montp estimate 90% of clients they speak to won't be able to meet their liabilities.

[Rhydd]

Statistics

With a population of 2,200 and a sample size of 150, you can be 95% confident that the results have a margin of error of 8%, assuming that the sample is a random selection.

That means that if 40% of victims said that they would have to sell their homes then you can be 95% certain that the proportion who will have to sell their homes is between 32% and 48%.

Sample Size Calculator - Confidence Level, Confidence Interval, Sample Size, Population Size, Relevant Population - Creative Research Systems

[moira under the stairs]

If that's not a human rights breach, I don't know what is.

After watching the Dispatches programme last night which demonstrated what civil liberties you have in the UK..... NONE

It seems that the Governments/Civil serpents policy is clear "We are going to screw you and we don't care how we do it."