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

[OnYourBikeGB]

http://www.taxchambers.com/sites/def...sultations.pdf

"Had we never had the Glorious Revolution of 1688 which firmly established that the
Administration is not a law onto itself but that its actions can always be called into
account in the Courts, had we not defeated the absolutist Napoleon Bonaparte, had Hitler
won the Second World War and we were now a fascist society and if we did not have a
Human Rights Act, HMRC’s proposals would, perhaps, make some sense. As it is, they
are utterly repugnant to the values of the people of the United Kingdom society in 2014.
That these proposals could now even be mooted, shows that there is something very
rotten in the state of HMRC."

I like him a lot. Any chance of getting footnote 5 enacted, retrospectively?

[swede]

Finance bill committee?

An absolutely excellent quotation DR. This should be trumpeted from the roof-tops, so that all citizens of the UK become aware of the fate that awaits them if this morally repugnant government succeeds with its Orwellian plans.
Viv la revolution!

Is this something we should be approaching our MPs with DR? I'd be more than happy to go and have another chat with mine regarding this. He was on last years Finance Bill Committee - does this mean he would be on this years too?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Is this something we should be approaching our MPs with DR? I'd be more than happy to go and have another chat with mine regarding this. He was on last years Finance Bill Committee - does this mean he would be on this years too?

We need to wait for the FB to be published, which should be around the time of the Budget next week.

[eek]

http://www.taxchambers.com/sites/def...sultations.pdf

"...
That these proposals could now even be mooted, shows that there is something very
rotten in the state of HMRC."

Not quite. It shows that the Customs and Excise people within HMRC don't understand that their guilty until we are satisfied you aren't approach isn't how the rest of HMRC worked....

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Not quite. It shows that the Customs and Excise people within HMRC don't understand that their guilty until we are satisfied you aren't approach isn't how the rest of HMRC worked....

It's one thing to change it to "guilty until proven innocent" going forward but it's another thing altogether to retrospectively apply this as far back as 2004.

[smalldog]

It's one thing to change it to "guilty until proven innocent" going forward but it's another thing altogether to retrospectively apply this as far back as 2004.

its pretty obvious that HMRC are using retro as a punitive measure to a) put people off ever going near something similar, b) to punish those that did. I struggle to believe its for purely financial reasons.

and off the back of Venables QC's paper, he is damn right, last time I vote Tory! I would imagine a large proportion of the electorate would think twice about doing the same. Labour started all this but Gauke and co. seem hell bent on taking this nuclear! The prospect of basically voting Gauke back into his position after all this makes my stomach churn.

[reckless]

its pretty obvious that HMRC are using retro as a punitive measure to a) put people off ever going near something similar, b) to punish those that did. I struggle to believe its for purely financial reasons.

and off the back of Venables QC's paper, he is damn right, last time I vote Tory! I would imagine a large proportion of the electorate would think twice about doing the same. Labour started all this but Gauke and co. seem hell bent on taking this nuclear! The prospect of basically voting Gauke back into his position after all this makes my stomach churn.

And what better way to achieve their objective a) than to string us along for several years and have our genuine fears and concerns advertised for free on the thread with the most hits on the best known Contractors' forum, so that as many other contractors as possible get the message.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

its pretty obvious that HMRC are using retro as a punitive measure to a) put people off ever going near something similar, b) to punish those that did. I struggle to believe its for purely financial reasons.

I tend to agree. Having said that, clobbering 65,000 could potentially generate a substantial windfall tax.

[DaveB]

Not quite. It shows that the Customs and Excise people within HMRC don't understand that their guilty until we are satisfied you aren't approach isn't how the rest of HMRC worked....

Small point and off topic, but it's not the Customs and Excise people that are the problem it's the (Inland) Revenue side that are the numpties.

C&E do VAT and other duties (in the tax sense) Revenue do personal and corporate tax, NI etc.

The VAT guys have always been open and above board and you always know where you stand with them. The Revenue guys are the greasy weasels.

[javadude]

Small point and off topic, but it's not the Customs and Excise people that are the problem it's the (Inland) Revenue side that are the numpties.

C&E do VAT and other duties (in the tax sense) Revenue do personal and corporate tax, NI etc.

The VAT guys have always been open and above board and you always know where you stand with them. The Revenue guys are the greasy weasels.

The VAT guys may not be as unethical but they're not very competent. I recently phoned them with a VAT question and was given the wrong advice. If I'd followed it then I'd have overpaid VAT by £4k. Also a couple of years ago we made a mistake and underpaid VAT. It took several detailed letters and phone calls before they understood and stopped refunding the extra money that we tried to pay them.