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

[screwthis]

Maybe AB has had a sex change.

I actually think so.

- Disgruntled
- Axe to grind
- Knows the forum link
- More knowledge of the situation than would be expected from someone who never used the scheme
- Mentioned MontP and no other scheme provider

[OnYourBikeGB]

Agree entirely. We're not going to change her mind, and we are already engaging with anybody of influence so we really have nothing to gain by getting into online spats.

Completely agree. I suspect winding us up is as important to him/her as it is to promoting the one-person campaign. A little bit of strange psychology too, to want to start it. Obviously either a very deeply held belief, which I doubt seeing as no-one in IT would use their own name in something like that and sign off with 'rach x' (made me laugh, that, very sweet) or else its some slightly deluded individual carrying a grudge who wants to stop the traction that's being gained and sees themselves as a moral champion of the people. Take it as a compliment thats someone is worried that we're getting our message out there, and ignore them.

Also funny was the bit about our 'low profile' campaign. lol. That's why there's a NTRT website etc ... doh! There goes the low profile!

Anyone following those links anyway may come to an entirely different conclusion anyway. I know anyone I have discussed this with, while they were not impressed with the tax planning, were completely amazed that HMRC / Government could do what they've done. And the issue of Starbucks and Google not be caught in such a manner always comes up too.

Not everyone is outraged as Rache.

[BrilloPad]

Rachel has been a busy girl. I wonder where she works?

Safe to say that she won't get a warm welcome here (though I might throw her to the wolves in General...)

I suspect we're the only ones who've even noticed her comments, and it's probably best just to ignore them.

Sorry I'm with Cojak on this one. In the early days it was wall to wall trolls on the BN66 threads. They never responded to what was posted - just posted a load of nonsense. The trolls in general need some fresk meat from time to time - ever since NLUK started picking off the newbies.

I am far more concerned with what comes next. I am very much against any sort of deal with HMRC - whatever the settlement I can't pay it. I can see no way for us to get justice - so now I just wait for the inevitable bankruptcy. My solace is that HMRC won't see a penny - unless house prices rise dramatically.

I just hope for more time now - eldest kids start year 7 in September and another 7 years would be ideal to get them through A-levels. Mrs BP, youngest BP and I can then move abroad with a clear conscience. Impossible? Well in 2008 I predicted 2012 for this to be settled and was scoffed at. I then moved to 2015. Why not 2020?

[Buzby]

Sorry I'm with Cojak on this one. In the early days it was wall to wall trolls on the BN66 threads. They never responded to what was posted - just posted a load of nonsense. The trolls in general need some fresk meat from time to time - ever since NLUK started picking off the newbies.

I am far more concerned with what comes next. I am very much against any sort of deal with HMRC - whatever the settlement I can't pay it. I can see no way for us to get justice - so now I just wait for the inevitable bankruptcy. My solace is that HMRC won't see a penny - unless house prices rise dramatically.

I just hope for more time now - eldest kids start year 7 in September and another 7 years would be ideal to get them through A-levels. Mrs BP, youngest BP and I can then move abroad with a clear conscience. Impossible? Well in 2008 I predicted 2012 for this to be settled and was scoffed at. I then moved to 2015. Why not 2020?

My kids are a few years older, but agree would just like them to finish school before losing home, if it comes to that.

I think a lot depends on first tier tribunal and if we lose do they start collecting or wait for all appeals.

But let's not forgot all the other avenues NTRT are working on.

[SantaClaus]

Maybe Rachel should start venting her spleen at articles such as this...

Ministers are 'powerless' to block £10,000 pay rise for MPs - Telegraph

[ready_to_leave]

I actually think so.

- Disgruntled
- Axe to grind
- Knows the forum link
- More knowledge of the situation than would be expected from someone who never used the scheme
- Mentioned MontP and no other scheme provider

Hmm.. with a bit of googling around the gravatar hash from the postings one turns up at a facebook page that looks remarkably un-female like. I wish people would not throw bricks by pretending to be other people (could be the missus I suppose but seems unlikely).

Definitely one of the above.

[BrilloPad]

I wish people would not throw bricks by pretending to be other people

Take a normal person. Add internet anonymity. Result is raving lunatic.Which is why I thought cojak's suggestion was brilliant. No-one survives general for long.

Then of course you have non-normal people to start with....

[forcoffee]

In one of those sites Rachel says:
"I personally believe that in this case retrospection is completely justified as a deterrent to future loophole abuse through highly artificial schemes. Schemes which trample all over the spirit of the law and only serve to benefit a greedy few at the detriment to the rest of us."

This is an interesting perspective. If this implementation of retrospective clarification is allowed to stand it creates a precedent for future similar actions whenever Hector seeks to 'clarify' the law to what he wishes it to be. It provides a nuclear deterrant to be used by Hector and the Treasury anytime the 'little people' get above themselves.

It is no longer about recovery of £200m but retaining the weapon.

You forget that the government is trying to implement a general anti avoidance clause into law which will in effect give them the freedom to challenge anything that they feel is avoidance. They will not need to do anything retrospective ever again as "avoidance" will be there interpretation.

[forcoffee]

Gauke Reply:

In February 2012 the Government saved £500m by retrospectively applying a change to the law for UK banks that were openingly using an ""aggressive tax avoidance" scheme.

Announcing the crackdown, Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, David Gauke, said
"We do not take today's action lightly, but the potential tax loss from this scheme and the history of previous abuse in this area mean that this is a circumstance where the decision to change the law with full retrospective effect is justified."


Has someone challenged Mr Gauke as to why his retrospective action for the banks was only 3 months for the scheme the Banks were using and disclosing to HMRC for years. Why has he hitting us up for over 10 year!!!!!!

Imagine if he tried that with the Banks!!!!!!!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
28 February 2012

"Barclays Bank has been ordered by the Treasury to pay half-a-billion pounds in tax which it had tried to avoid.

Barclays was accused by HM Revenue and Customs of designing and using two schemes that were intended to avoid substantial amounts of tax.

The government has taken the unusual step of introducing retrospective legislation to end such "aggressive tax avoidance" by financial institutions.

Tax rules forced the bank to tell the authorities about its plans.

The government has closed the schemes to retrieve £500m of lost tax and safeguard payments of billions of more tax in the future.

BBC business editor Robert Peston has been told by Barclays that it is surprised by HMRC's reaction to the two schemes, which it believed to be in line with those used by other banks."

[ILurkedTooLong]

Hi all - I have a combination of furious anger and vomitous stress feeling right now, as a couple of Closure Notices arrived in the post this morning. (Dated 21st June, arrived 2nd July.) I honestly thought that HMRC had forgotten about me, their last letter was six years ago. Does anyone know what I would need to do, to appeal this? (Contact details at MP, etc.?)