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

[TAF4]

One day the truth will come out - HMRC wanted retrospection to cover their failings of not closing the scheme earlier. And lied to parliament about the real reason.

And the sick muppets also had a personal vendetta against MrG of MP which was illustrated by an illegal attack on his IOM offices and his arrest in the streets of London.

We are paying the price of that personal animosity.


Now, if we could only find a whistle blower that would produce evidence that this was maliciously motivated whilst also covering for incompetence...........

I can dream.

[Guttersnipe]

The Law of Unintended Consequences

Had an interesting conversation with a friend of mine yesterday. He's an insurance broker specialising in M&A liabilities and is seeing an increasing number of requests during company takeovers for insurance relating to tax mitigation. The driver apparently being that firms are concerned that any deal could leave them exposed due to HMRC time-machines, goalpost-moving, etc.. Firms are aware of s58 and do not necessarily trust the new policy around retrospective tax. They end up paying for auditors reports plus insurance plus further due diligence on the insurance.

Business is good for him, business has got a little bit worse for anyone trying to do business. Take a bow, Hector.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Early Day Motion

Early day motion 425 - RETROSPECTIVE LEGISLATION AND SECTION 58(4) OF THE FINANCE ACT 2008 - UK Parliament

We will shortly be asking people to lobby their MPs to sign it.

[Guttersnipe]

Early Day Motion

Just to set expectations, is it right to suggest that EDMs are used primarily for publicity and to assess support?

[d000hg]

Early day motion 425 - RETROSPECTIVE LEGISLATION AND SECTION 58(4) OF THE FINANCE ACT 2008 - UK Parliament

We will shortly be asking people to lobby their MPs to sign it.

Was that an expected development DR?

[deckster]

Just to set expectations, is it right to suggest that EDMs are used primarily for publicity and to assess support?

Very much so. The chances of an EDM even being debated are next to zero. http://www.parliament.uk/documents/c...office/p03.pdf

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Was that an expected development DR?

Yes, I think it was mentioned in a recent newsletter.

[Ninja]

EDM

Very much so. The chances of an EDM even being debated are next to zero. http://www.parliament.uk/documents/c...office/p03.pdf

Very true, but that shouldn't put us all off from trying. It costs nothing.
After all, you have to be in it to win it!

[TalkingCheese]

Very true, but that shouldn't put us all off from trying. It costs nothing.
After all, you have to be in it to win it!

Absolutely Ninja. This keeps the fire alight and in the minds of the MPs. As time goes on more and more will support this EDM.

There are still many who support the goal of NTRT and victims of S58 FA 2008 despite the much more confident letters currently coming from Gauke following the FB debate. These letters peddle the same ole HMRC spin, with quite a few untruths and they totally ignore some pertinent facts. MPs need to be made aware of that. Whitehouse are working on it and will be calling for support from us soon.

[TAF4]

In law and in Parliament precedent is everything.
The use of retrospection was based on a precedent in Padmore. If S58 continues to stand it establishes a much stronger and more dangerous precedent for future exploitation.

That alone should be so scary that no MP can possibly accept it. We have to keep banging on until more and more get the message. At some point a critical mass of cross-party support will be obtained after which the lemmings will also fall in line.

Whitehouse are proving almost as good an investment as the original scheme and I am immensely grateful to them.