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

[BarneyCool]

You can have a copy of mine if you like.

Your having a laugh. I've been waiting for a response from my MP and Gauke since the 9th of March. I recon my letter has fallen down the back of his sofa!

It will be exactly the same.

[nevergiveup]

It will be exactly the same.

[wertert]

HMRC campaign deadlines approach for electricians and online traders

Interesting item here.

HMRC campaign deadlines approach for electricians and online traders | Westbury | London

"" The campaigns offer a 'window of opportunity', where those in the group specified may come forward and disclose any income that HMRC is not aware of. ""

No stupid smiley.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Anyone have any ideas how we can make this a Gauke priority? I'm guessing there are other 'things' he has to deal with - but what?

I can confirm that Gauke is being engaged by at least one Cabinet MP on this. I can confirm that the standard reply from Mr. Gauke is to be rebutted and various explicit answers being asked of him and in his own words. This is not an attack on David Gauke, it is a Ministerial engagement following due Parliamentary process. Notwithstanding, 'that' letter will need improving on as a result. A key demand for a specific response is on the matter of Parliament being misled on a matter that is considered serious - retrospection. This has thus far been 'avoided'.

[Buzby]

I can confirm that Gauke is being engaged by at least one Cabinet MP on this. I can confirm that the standard reply from Mr. Gauke is to be rebutted and various explicit answers being asked of him and in his own words. This is not an attack on David Gauke, it is a Ministerial engagement following due Parliamentary process. Notwithstanding, 'that' letter will need improving on as a result. A key demand for a specific response is on the matter of Parliament being misled on a matter that is considered serious - retrospection. This has thus far been 'avoided'.

aggressively avoided.

[OnYourBikeGB]

aggressively avoided.

I'd say it's a straight forward case of avasionation.

[Dieselpower]

Tax Court Nightmare?

I had a chat with a retired tax lawyer (ex magic circle) today and here was his thinking on the tax courts matter:

1. HMRC issue 3000 Closure notices for EACH year - so possibly 10,000-12,000 total
2. All the different promoters appeal (which they are doing)
3. Therefore the cases need to be heard at the First Tier Tax Tribunal (FTT)
4. HMRC then have 2 choices - a or b
a. Write to 3000 people asking us to abide by a single "lead case" - we will obviously tell them no
b. Just take a TEST case to court and if they win that one (not a foregone conclusion by the way) then they try to pressurise us into not proceeding with our cases - again we will tell them no.
5. The FTT can only handle 40ish cases at a time, not 10,000. Not 3,000.
6. He noted that there are a. lots of different promoters. b. all schemes were not at all identical c. all "individual" cases are by no means identical.
He suggests that HMRC may have shot themselves in the foot here. Only a new "law" (eg "Thou shallt not have your day in court") would really assist them. Or if they manage to convince a judge that our schemes are all identical (which they are patently not)

One of the basic premises of Human Rights in this country is to have "our day in court" - not to vicariously enjoy the day thru a test or lead case - but to have an opportunity to have our individual circumstances heard by a judge. Its a basic Human Right, and I personally have been in court and seen how judges aim to ensure that right stays with us. (in exactly the same context of arguments by one set of parties that their circumstances are all in fact different, and NOT identical)

[portseven]

I had a chat with a retired tax lawyer (ex magic circle) today and here was his thinking on the tax courts matter:

1. HMRC issue 3000 Closure notices for EACH year - so possibly 10,000-12,000 total
2. All the different promoters appeal (which they are doing)
3. Therefore the cases need to be heard at the First Tier Tax Tribunal (FTT)
4. HMRC then have 2 choices - a or b
a. Write to 3000 people asking us to abide by a single "lead case" - we will obviously tell them no
b. Just take a TEST case to court and if they win that one (not a foregone conclusion by the way) then they try to pressurise us into not proceeding with our cases - again we will tell them no.
5. The FTT can only handle 40ish cases at a time, not 10,000. Not 3,000.
6. He noted that there are a. lots of different promoters. b. all schemes were not at all identical c. all "individual" cases are by no means identical.
He suggests that HMRC may have shot themselves in the foot here. Only a new "law" (eg "Thou shallt not have your day in court") would really assist them. Or if they manage to convince a judge that our schemes are all identical (which they are patently not)

One of the basic premises of Human Rights in this country is to have "our day in court" - not to vicariously enjoy the day thru a test or lead case - but to have an opportunity to have our individual circumstances heard by a judge. Its a basic Human Right, and I personally have been in court and seen how judges aim to ensure that right stays with us. (in exactly the same context of arguments by one set of parties that their circumstances are all in fact different, and NOT identical)

The phrase "couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery" comes to mind.... HMRC you tossers!

[BrilloPad]

The phrase "couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery" comes to mind.... HMRC you tossers!

+1

I will be in court for my case. See you there Alan

[nevergiveup]

Twitter

Checkout #No2RetroTax