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

[zippo]

It's shocking how many times he was asked to answer the question with a simple yes or no.

Yes sure did.

Usual Gauke not answering the question directly.

That new scheme for corporates sounded interesting considering it's in the Tax manuals. Wonder if they will use retrospection with this one.

[swede]

"Notice of Further Assessment", where there was no prior enquiry, is essentially a discovery assessment. It's equivalent to opening an enquiry under discovery and then issuing a closure notice, all in one go.

HMRC's use of discovery will need to be tested at the FTT. Their position is weakest where a tax return contained a DOTAS scheme reference number.

Thanks DR - that counts me in for at least one year then.

[Disgusted of Coventry]

How does discovery stand up against the notion that now it's 'full retrospection' and not merely clarifcation of the existing 1987 law?

Maybe they'll now have to retrospectively change their procedure rules (laws?) in order to be deemed to have prospectively applied the subsequent retrospective change to the earlier 1987 legislation.

Or something.

[BettySwollocks]

Thanks DR - that counts me in for at least one year then.

I asked this question to NTRT and their initial response was that if a scheme existed prior to the DOTAS scheme coming into force then a DOTAS number wasn't required on the tax return...

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I asked this question to NTRT and their initial response was that if a scheme existed prior to the DOTAS scheme coming into force then a DOTAS number wasn't required on the tax return...

There are other reasons too why the scheme didn't need to be registered under DOTAS.

HMRC keep claiming there was inadequate disclosure but this is just more misinformation to try and paint us in a bad light.

[Taffia]

Latest missive from Whitehouse just winged off to my MP . . .

[CanPayButWouldRatherNot]

slightly off topic but relevant to montpelier ebt/loan scheme users

Folks>

For those of you who stayed with Montpelier and got involved in the loan/ebt scheme.

There is a generic thread for loan scheme users ->

http://forums.contractoruk.com/hmrc-...chemes-54.html

Have created a distinct thread for those BN66'ers that also will be on the HMRC loan radar with MTM

http://forums.contractoruk.com/hmrc-...ml#post1810057

CPBWRN

[stuffed]

Maybe worth Enlighting this chap on our plight??

Tax Simplifier 27: Retrospective tax – we’re already on the slippery slope - Centre for Policy Studies

[reckless]

HMRC reply to NTRT Toolkit letter

I have just received a second response to the latest NTRT toolkit letter from one of Gauke's stooges at Her Majesty's Robbers and Crooks. They defended their position by twisting the words of the NTRT letter to say that 'I agreed with the court's claim the scheme had doubtful efficacy!' They then go on to say that because the promoter did not guarantee the scheme, I should have known it had doubtful efficacy! Finally they refute the claim of perjury because I did not submit evidence. Well I'm sure there will be no shortage of evidence when it comes to the appropriate time.

If this is the best they can do, then I think we have them on the ropes. I get the feeling that the accusation of perjury may be now worrying a few Hectors.

I have forwarded the reply to Whitehouse.

I have also asked my MP to sign the Early Day Motion.

Chins up!
K.B.O.

[honeyridges]

Same here

I have just received a second response to the latest NTRT toolkit letter from one of Gauke's stooges at Her Majesty's Robbers and Crooks. They defended their position by twisting the words of the NTRT letter to say that 'I agreed with the court's claim the scheme had doubtful efficacy!' They then go on to say that because the promoter did not guarantee the scheme, I should have known it had doubtful efficacy! Finally they refute the claim of perjury because I did not submit evidence. Well I'm sure there will be no shortage of evidence when it comes to the appropriate time.

I suspect I've received the same reply. This paragraph in particular struck me as weak:

As you say, the courts’ view was that the avoidance scheme you used was of doubtful efficacy. A matter that is open to doubt cannot have been decided in your favour. It is therefore correct to say that there is no basis in fact for the assertion that the tax avoidance scheme complied with the law.

It seems to me that this represents a retreat from their original assertion that the scheme did not comply with the law. Just as a matter that is 'open to doubt' cannot have been decided in our favour, equally nor could it have been decided in theirs. And that's the whole point - it's why we're demanding it be decided, but under the law as it stood while the scheme operated. And something that must be apparent to even the most unsympathetic (of our position) onlookers is the reason for the retrospective nature of BN66 being that they did not believe they would win under the law as it stood at the time. And that strongly suggests they believed the scheme would likely be shown to be effective.

In many ways the manner in which the goalposts were moved after the fact is so blatantly unfair that it almost seems ridiculous that we are having to argue our case at all. And I do agree with your opinion that their argument does increasingly appear to be lacking conviction.