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

[PlaneSailing]

Consistent

Nope. Just the courts piece.

So they aren't consistently claiming that they consistently claimed that the money was due.

At what point does this stop being confusing?

[TalkingCheese]

So they aren't consistently claiming that they consistently claimed that the money was due.

At what point does this stop being confusing?

Or another way... They are not claiming throughout that they claimed throughout that the scheme was rejected.

[PlaneSailing]

Or another way... They are not claiming throughout that they claimed throughout that the scheme was rejected.

I assume that the points raised on here are filtering through. We know they read this. So, Hector, if you didn't consistently say the money was owed, which you've as good as admitted through omission in your latest letters, quite a large plank in your defence is looking very dubious. Fancy settling? I've got 10 quid in my pocket. Take that, and let's pretend this never happened.

[bombaycat]

throughout...

Being in receipt of 2 Gauke replies via both my MPs, both dated same day in April I can say that:

- in both they claimed that throughout they had made it clear the scheme didn't work

- in one only they add the line HMRC is not aware of any reference to any European Court in relation to Section 58 Finance Act 2008

There could also be a clue as to how many of these gems they've sent out as both have refs at the top the numbers 39 apart (don't want to put the actual numbers as then they'll know who I am on here). Interestingly the ref probably gives the total number of these cut and paste jobs they have some poor intern churning out let's say we are looking at ballpark > 1200 by mid April.

The poor chap(ess) outputting these should be paid on piece work I hope, would make bankers bonuses look small!

[Dieselpower]

MP responses

My MP has forwarded the 'Ministerial Response' letter from Gauke. I got an abbreviated version that used the piece about 'The courts have decided it was ok to shaft you so get over it!'

Interestingly the piece about consistently advising we pay on account wasn't included. Maybe it's an austerity measure to reduce BullTulip consumption.

The covering letter acknowledged the meeting with my wife (in which she blistered his ears) but rather promisingly asked 'Where would you/the group like to go next on this one?' .

The Group?? Where did that come from?

I shall now be pressing for a meeting in Westminster (as I work near there).

Hi TAF - did you communicate the letter from your MP to Whitehouse or DR please?

[TAF4]

Ooops!!!

Hi TAF - did you communicate the letter from your MP to Whitehouse or DR please?

First of all an apology.

The Gauke response signed by him DOES contain the 'Throughout Hector made it clear' statements. Sorry to mislead earlier today when I had failed to read the pdf fully on my 'phone.

I have forwarded the whole shebang to Liane at Whitehouse asking for assistance in developing a rapid response.

[WhiteCat]

"Made it clear" ???

Being in receipt of 2 Gauke replies via both my MPs, both dated same day in April I can say that:

- in both they claimed that throughout they had made it clear the scheme didn't work
etc.

As many have said, this is complete rubbish. On enquiry notices HMRC often said that they didn't like the scheme and proposed to challenge it. That's absolutely nothing like "making it clear the scheme didn't work". Especially after 7 years . . . .

[Disgusted of Coventry]

Yes but...

You would hope that MontP chose the right case to take forward that best represents their case. The judgement is not whether or not (i) & (ii) are true or not, its whether the reprospective nature broke his human rights. Certainly Mr Huitson was one of the earliest users of the scheme so the retrospective element was most relevant to him. The appeals process allows the arguments to be shot down during appeal if they were incorrect and it was up to Huitsons legal team to do that. It's not clear to me whether they adequately did that for (ii) or not but nonetheless as far as human rights are concerned we are beyond argueing that in the UK courts.

Ok, I get that the Court process is finished and that they've decided that s58 is compatible with A1P1 in some vague way.

What I don't get is how it relates to the 'deadly embrace' that Gauke has got going on with the Courts. It appears to work like this :

...The Supreme Court defers to Parliament's supremacy.
...The Government defers to the decision of the Supreme Court.

But that's just glib, self-referential nonsense! So what EXACTLY have the Courts decided, that Gauke thinks he can use as a convenient bolthole? It doesn't make any sense.

[portseven]

Just a thought...

If our MP's see sense and manage to get an amendment to s58 tabled and passed

What's to stop HMRC trying to challenge that in the courts, and thus racking up legal fees for MP, plus adding more interest while we wait the outcome?

Wouldn't put it past Hector to pull a stunt like this

[BrilloPad]

Just a thought...

If our MP's see sense and manage to get an amendment to s58 tabled and passed

What's to stop HMRC trying to challenge that in the courts, and thus racking up legal fees for MP, plus adding more interest while we wait the outcome?

Wouldn't put it past Hector to pull a stunt like this

Good point! Lets not bother.

Montp have got tons of money for legal fees. And if not tough luck.

Anyone who can afford a CTD should have one by now. Personally I am going bankrupt so they can add all the extra interest they want.