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

[DonkeyRhubarb]

What struck me is that this article takes it as perfectly normal - the done thing - that retrospective legislation is applied.

There are a lot of ill-informed people out there.

What is it they say about "assume"? It makes an ass out of u and me.

JOURNALS OF ROBERT MAAS

"Thirdly, the Westminster 18 seem to want to protect a weird minority of people. Even if the Chancellor were to accept their plea (which he clearly won’t) it would take out of tax (for years up to 2007/08 only) those who entered into this tax avoidance scheme and who have not yet agreed their tax assessments for that year. It would not help those who entered into the scheme and have agreed assessments, as those assessments cannot now be re-opened. Nor would it take out those who have conceded defeat and paid their tax. That surely leaves a very tiny minority of the users of the scheme. I imagine that HMRC will have written to those with un-agreed tax affairs in around July 2008 asking them to agree the assessment. It is almost inconceivable that five years later HMRC have not taken such people to the tax appeals Tribunal. Accordingly the people who the Westminster 18 seem to want to help are likely to be those who HMRC did not know about, and after FA 2008, was passed chose not to amend their tax returns to reflect section 58 or even to tell HMRC that their earlier returns were wrong. There is a good argument that a person who knows that a change in the law has rendered an earlier tax return incorrect and does not tell HMRC about it, is committing tax fraud. So it seems to be evaders, not avoiders, that the Westminster 18 wish to benefit."

[Ninja]

Robert Maas

There are a lot of ill-informed people out there.

What is it they say about "assume"? It makes an ass out of u and me.

JOURNALS OF ROBERT MAAS

"Thirdly, the Westminster 18 seem to want to protect a weird minority of people. Even if the Chancellor were to accept their plea (which he clearly won’t) it would take out of tax (for years up to 2007/08 only) those who entered into this tax avoidance scheme and who have not yet agreed their tax assessments for that year. It would not help those who entered into the scheme and have agreed assessments, as those assessments cannot now be re-opened. Nor would it take out those who have conceded defeat and paid their tax. That surely leaves a very tiny minority of the users of the scheme. I imagine that HMRC will have written to those with un-agreed tax affairs in around July 2008 asking them to agree the assessment. It is almost inconceivable that five years later HMRC have not taken such people to the tax appeals Tribunal. Accordingly the people who the Westminster 18 seem to want to help are likely to be those who HMRC did not know about, and after FA 2008, was passed chose not to amend their tax returns to reflect section 58 or even to tell HMRC that their earlier returns were wrong. There is a good argument that a person who knows that a change in the law has rendered an earlier tax return incorrect and does not tell HMRC about it, is committing tax fraud. So it seems to be evaders, not avoiders, that the Westminster 18 wish to benefit."

Has someone from NTRT written to this character to put him straight about 'the facts' rather than to allow him to perpetuate his ill-informed diatribe?

[BrilloPad]

Has someone from NTRT written to this character to put him straight about 'the facts' rather than to allow him to perpetuate his ill-informed diatribe?

Maybe AB will write to him and put him straight? Not even HMRC agrees with that pile of poo.

[DaveB]

Has someone from NTRT written to this character to put him straight about 'the facts' rather than to allow him to perpetuate his ill-informed diatribe?

Given that he claims to be a tax specialist

I am one of an increasingly rare breed, namely a tax specialist who specialises in tax, not just in a little bit of tax.

I can do this because I came into tax in 1965 (the same time as corporation tax and capital gains tax)when the legislation was a lot simpler than know. Accordingly learning VAT, IHT, SDLT and Lanfill tax from the time of their introduction has been relatively easy.

That probably makes me sound like a "jack of all trades but master of none". However that is not the case. I like the interrelationship between the different taxes. My involvement with a number of professional bodies and writing and lecturing forces me to keep up to date on pretty much the whole tax system.

In particular I have been very involved for many years with the ICAEW Tax Faculty (since 1977 actually!) and for about the last 10 with the Institute of Indirect Taxation, of which I am currently the Technical Director.

Specialties
Tax - especially family businesses. I also have a particular interest in taxpayer rights and HMRC powers. But I have done a lot on residence and domicile, tax investigations, PAYE status disputes, property tax, capital gains tax, estate planning, use of trusts, and share valuations for tax purposes, to name but a few. I must also be the only direct tax specialist who spends around 40% of his time giving VAT advice.

You'd expect him to be better informed or at least have a better understanding of the issues.

[MishiMoo]

Dumb ECHR question

My understanding at this time is that our ECHR case has not yet been heard in the court in Strasbourg - it is on some sort of a massive waiting list. The hard-pressed judges there decide what's urgent, and what isn't. The courts in the UK have predicted - incorrectly in my opinion - what the outcome will be. I still believe that our case there stands firm - especially on the proportionality of retrospectivity. If, or should that be when, Hector comes a-knocking at any of our respective doors, are we not able, Abu Hamza style, to force this case to be heard there, before our rights are actually breached?

[BrilloPad]

My understanding at this time is that our ECHR case has not yet been heard in the court in Strasbourg - it is on some sort of a massive waiting list. The hard-pressed judges there decide what's urgent, and what isn't. The courts in the UK have predicted - incorrectly in my opinion - what the outcome will be. I still believe that our case there stands firm - especially on the proportionality of retrospectivity. If, or should that be when, Hector comes a-knocking at any of our respective doors, are we not able, Abu Hamza style, to force this case to be heard there, before our rights are actually breached?

I don't belive they have to wait.

Before they can knock on our doors they have to get through the tax tribunals.

But ECHR may will get heard before the tax tribunals.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Strasbourg

As far as HMRC are concerned, there is no ECHR case at the moment.

Although Montpelier applied 12 months ago, it is still sat in a queue waiting for a Judge to rule if the case is admissible.

HMRC will only be formally notified of the case if the application passes this first hurdle.

[MishiMoo]

As far as HMRC are concerned, there is no ECHR case at the moment.

Although Montpelier applied 12 months ago, it is still sat in a queue waiting for a Judge to rule if the case is admissible.

HMRC will only be notified if the application passes this first hurdle.

Hmmm, however I suppose that is exactly my point. If it ever gets to that stage, will Strasbourg fast-track their decision - even if it is only that very first one - because we are facing a direct and immediate threat of injustice? If not, then why have they done so in the past for other great "luminaries" such as Abu H? Are we not entitled to the same level of customer service here, or what?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Hmmm, however I suppose that is exactly my point. If it ever gets to that stage, will Strasbourg fast-track their decision - even if it is only that very first one - because we are facing a direct and immediate threat of injustice? If not, then why have they done so in the past for other great "luminaries" such as Abu H? Are we not entitled to the same level of customer service here, or what?

It would be down to Montpelier to apply for it to be fast tracked. We are quite some way off HMRC actually enforcing collection, so at the moment there would be no justification for fast tracking it.

I have to say, I'm not very optimistic that the application will be accepted.

[BrilloPad]

It would be down to Montpelier to apply for it to be fast tracked. We are quite some way off HMRC actually enforcing collection, so at the moment there would be no justification for fast tracking it.

I have to say, I'm not very optimistic that the application will be accepted.

+1

We wwere denied justice at the supreme court and ECHR will probably not be any different.