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

[TalkingCheese]

Gauke needs explain himself to his peers ("litigation on the basis of the pre-section 58 legislation would ultimately show that the scheme failed") as the courts have already confirmed this is not the case. He is speaking an untruth, in short knowingly lying to parliament....

Perhaps he knows the law better than the judge ... who needs courts !?!

[WhiteCat]

Scheme would have failed ?

Gauke needs explain himself to his peers ("litigation on the basis of the pre-section 58 legislation would ultimately show that the scheme failed") as the courts have already confirmed this is not the case. He is speaking an untruth, in short knowingly lying to parliament....

Actually, he's more cunning than that, this quote is preceded by the phrase "HMRC's clear view is that . . . . . " etc. neatly disowning the statement if necessary.

[TalkingCheese]

Actually, he's more cunning than that, this quote is preceded by the phrase "HMRC's clear view is that . . . . . " etc. neatly disowning the statement if necessary.

Ah, a very cunning stunt indeed

[Fireship]

Actually, he's more cunning than that, this quote is preceded by the phrase "HMRC's clear view is that . . . . . " etc. neatly disowning the statement if necessary.

Perhaps, but he can’t deny he’s aware of the facts/ruling without lying.

[Buzby]

HMRC's clear view is that litigation on the basis of the pre-section 58 legislation would ultimately show that the scheme failed

I wonder why we have tax tribunal courts, just let HMRC's 'view' decide.

The fact that HMRC's view (and now being quoted by government in debate) is not the same as a judge (Parker) should this be considered by parliamentary ombudsman ?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

HMRC's clear view is that litigation on the basis of the pre-section 58 legislation would ultimately show that the scheme failed

Well, a whole host of eminent tax QCs totally disagree with that. Every promoter (Montpelier, Steed, deGraaf, KPMG, PwC) obtained a legal opinion. Some individual taxpayers even sought their own legal advice before entering the arrangement.

We know HMRC also sought legal opinions. They just won't show anyone their's, probably because they contradict "HMRC's clear view".

However, they can't hide from the Parliamentary Ombudsman using legal & professional privilege.

[screwthis]

Well, a whole host of eminent tax QCs totally disagree with that. Every promoter (Montpelier, Steed, deGraaf, KPMG, PwC) obtained a legal opinion. Some individual taxpayers even sought their own legal advice before entering the arrangement.

We know HMRC also sought legal opinions. They just won't show anyone their's, probably because they contradict "HMRC's clear view".

However, they can't hide from the Parliamentary Ombudsman using legal & professional privilege.

DR, I know you've explained this before, but what can the Ombudsman do?
What is the best outcome we can expect?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Parliamentary Ombudsman

DR, I know you've explained this before, but what can the Ombudsman do?
What is the best outcome we can expect?

The reason NTRT are going to take the case to the Ombudsman is because they think HMRC are guilty of maladministration and misconduct.

If HMRC thought our arrangement was so abusive and aggressive, as they now claim, they were under a duty to close it down as soon as they knew about in 1993 when it was published in their own tax manual and again in 2002 when they did their TN63 report, but they failed in that duty.

Also they allowed some claims for the exemption allegedly in error (more maladministration) and allowed hundreds to claim the exemption without even enquiring into the claims. (yet more maladministration). They also concentrated on Montpelier clients but failed to chase other promoters. (more incompetence and maladministration)

So far as misconduct is concerned just look at the way they have manipulated the system to get retro legislation under the guise of “clarification”. A trail of false, inaccurate and misleading propaganda on a huge scale. Gross misconduct by any stretch of the imagination.

The Adjudicator and the Ombudsman have full power to inspect all internal documents, minutes of meeting and even legal privilege QC opinions. That is why the complaint process is being taken forward.

All their dirty linen will eventually be washed in public.

[smalldog]

The reason NTRT are going to take the case to the Ombudsman is because they think HMRC are guilty of maladministration and misconduct.

If HMRC thought our arrangement was so abusive and aggressive, as they now claim, they were under a duty to close it down as soon as they knew about in 1993 when it was published in their own tax manual and again in 2002 when they did their TN63 report, but they failed in that duty.

Also they allowed some claims for the exemption allegedly in error (more maladministration) and allowed hundreds to claim the exemption without even enquiring into the claims. (yet more maladministration). They also concentrated on Montpelier clients but failed to chase other promoters. (more incompetence and maladministration)

So far as misconduct is concerned just look at the way they have manipulated the system to get retro legislation under the guise of “clarification”. A trail of false, inaccurate and misleading propaganda on a huge scale. Gross misconduct by any stretch of the imagination.

The Adjudicator and the Ombudsman have full power to inspect all internal documents, minutes of meeting and even legal privilege QC opinions. That is why the complaint process is being taken forward.

All their dirty linen will eventually be washed in public.

and I hope whoever is ultimately being protected will be flushed as an outcome of that process. Be interesting to see who is so important as to put thousands of families at risk of being made bankrupt! There seems to be a big cover up going on high up in HMRC.

As I see it someone in HMRC really disliked MP, or to be personal Watkin and went out of their way to bring him and MP down. They sacrified the rule book in doing so as DR has pointed out. I sincerely hope it comes back to bite em, and hard! This vendetta and personal crusade has some considerable collateral damage, i.e. US!!!

[screwthis]

The reason NTRT are going to take the case to the Ombudsman is because they think HMRC are guilty of maladministration and misconduct.

If HMRC thought our arrangement was so abusive and aggressive, as they now claim, they were under a duty to close it down as soon as they knew about in 1993 when it was published in their own tax manual and again in 2002 when they did their TN63 report, but they failed in that duty.

Also they allowed some claims for the exemption allegedly in error (more maladministration) and allowed hundreds to claim the exemption without even enquiring into the claims. (yet more maladministration). They also concentrated on Montpelier clients but failed to chase other promoters. (more incompetence and maladministration)

So far as misconduct is concerned just look at the way they have manipulated the system to get retro legislation under the guise of “clarification”. A trail of false, inaccurate and misleading propaganda on a huge scale. Gross misconduct by any stretch of the imagination.

The Adjudicator and the Ombudsman have full power to inspect all internal documents, minutes of meeting and even legal privilege QC opinions. That is why the complaint process is being taken forward.

All their dirty linen will eventually be washed in public.

I understand the reasons (maladministration and misconduct), what I don't know is what a ruling against HMRC can lead to - i.e. would it just be a slap on the wrist for HMRC and nothing changes for us?