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

[jbryce]

That's entertainment

Well I just hope tiger aspect team realise the seriousness of what they are getting involved in here. Someone has already committed suicide over all this, it's no game. Peoples lives are at stake, quite literally and desperation is a highly dangerous emotion when you and your family are set to lose everything.

It's TV. Entertainment. Moving from 'Poverty Porn' to watching naive tax evaders take a severe kicking. There's a good guy (HMRC) and bad guys (scheme users) and there's also the elephants in the room (Barlow, Amazon etc.) who will be ignored. We'll see Tax inspectors standing up for the normal tax payer against the evil of legal avoidance. We'll see BMWs being repossessed and children bemoaning the lack of a Caribbean holiday. Family pets, who can no longer be fed, will be put down as a testament to the fecklessness of their tax evading owners.

It's highly unlikely to be a piece about abuse of powers or the general inept mendaciousness of HMRC. I doubt it will address the lack of much needed reform in the Tax System.

Will they be interested in groups of Contractors banding together to demand a fair hearing in a court of Law? I doubt it.

The independent piece does show that HMRC feel there is a PR battle to be won and Channel 4 appear to have obliged them with a little bit of air time.

[centurian]

Anyone who decides to appear on the program should draw up a proper legal contract with Tiger Aspect Productions with regards to the content and how they will be portrayed.

I think you will have more chance of getting HMRC to come round and cook Christmas dinner for you. There is no way a production company would yield "editorial control".

[SantaClaus]

I think you will have more chance of getting HMRC to come round and cook Christmas dinner for you. There is no way a production company would yield "editorial control".

In that case, if it was me personally I wouldn't do it.

The chance to have my pants pulled down in front of millions of viewers, and have friends, family and colleagues believe whatever lies have been concocted by Channel 4 for the dubious cause of "light entertainment"?

Not for me thanks!

Also, I would like to add.... I'd hate to see this happen to anybody else, especially someone who might be at tipping point. We have already had one suicide amongst us. I wonder how that would rest with R Newton's conscience?

[smalldog]

In that case, if it was me personally I wouldn't do it.

The chance to have my pants pulled down in front of millions of viewers, and have friends, family and colleagues believe whatever lies have been concocted by Channel 4 for the dubious cause of "light entertainment"?

Not for me thanks!

Also, I would like to add.... I'd hate to see this happen to anybody else, especially someone who might be at tipping point. We have already had one suicide amongst us. I wonder how that would rest with R Newton's conscience?

There is too much back history for your average viewer to understand how we got here and motives. I can just see it now:

HMRC rep: We just want everyone to pay their "fair" share of tax
Tiger aspect interviewer: So why didnt you think you needed to pay your "fair" share. The answer is far too complex for an average joe plonked in front of the TV to care about or understand. But as I said how much worse can it be, is it worth at least trying to get some airtime to put any points across?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

The first question any interviewer is going to ask is...

So why did you use a tax avoidance scheme?

[nick4notax]

Not really tempted

I'm with SantaClaus on this; not too keen in getting my pants pulled down with a million plus audience looking on...

That said, maybe a scheme provider or two could clearly articulate that these schemes WERE totally legal before the retro law CHANGE and that ALL citizens are perfectly entitled to seek the most tax effective remuneration mechanism that the law allows. Surely this is being missed in the noise here and Ms Newton needs to be fully appraised that this is an injustice to a bunch of "little guys" that, by our small number, render us presumed easy pickings for HMRC. We're just Joe Publics being vilified for doing nothing other than fully disclosing our entirely, at the (pre-retro law change), time LEGAL remuneration mechanism.

[nick4notax]

The first question any interviewer is going to ask is...

So why did you use a tax avoidance scheme?

Answer: IR35 meant I could not rely on trading through my limited company (given my income could be changed without warning by as much as 30%) so I sought certainty through a scheme that looked tax effective and made it easier for me to trade.

Reasonable?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Answer: IR35 meant I could not rely on trading through my limited company (given my income could be changed without warning by as much as 30%) so I sought certainty through a scheme that looked tax effective and made it easier for me to trade.

Reasonable?

Unfortunately I think any rationale will be lost on joe public who, after years of listening to Govt/HMRC banging on about how tax dodgers are to blame for everything, will see us as only marginally better than paedophiles.

[nick4notax]

Unfortunately I think any rationale will be lost on joe public who, after years of listening to Govt/HMRC banging on about how tax dodgers are to blame for everything, will see us as only marginally better than paedophiles.

Sadly, I think you're right. The deceitful govt/HMRC spin machine triumphs again... But it would be nice if the journalists question whether or not ordinary Joes like us should be discouraged from choosing to trade all those vital protections gained from employment with the extra cash from self-employment or trading through a ltd company. After all, its a legal choice open to all. We're not from the privileged elite, we're just plain old Joe Publics doing the best the law allows. Nothing more. Very sad.

[reckless]

Channel 4 programme

I agree that our case is far too complex for the average Joe to understand or even care about. Even most of our MPs failed to grasp what had been going on until it was spelled out over and over again for them, with numerous personal visits/letters/e-mails. The best Channel 4 could do would be, as has already been said, to get a scheme promoter or someone from say the Institute of Taxation or Chartered Accountants, to spell out to a wide audience how the country is sleep walking into a scary 1984 scenario where the law as applied yesterday may not be how that same law is applied tomorrow, or indeed how that law can be changed on the hoof to suit the narrow aims of an unelected, treacherous and vindictive body.