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

[jlg15333]

No fair treatment

Another interesting revelation involving HMRC.

I found the last paragraph interesting.

BBC News - F1's Ecclestone avoided potential £1.2bn tax bill

According to Panorama last night it's £2bn that he avoided tax on. But it's ok for him as he's rich & powerful. Everyone else should just suck it up and sing god save the queen & be grateful we're not sent to the workhouse if we can't pay ...

[OnYourBikeGB]

According to Panorama last night it's £2bn that he avoided tax on. But it's ok for him as he's rich & powerful. Everyone else should just suck it up and sing god save the queen & be grateful we're not sent to the workhouse if we can't pay ...

So retrospection is morally justified for a supposed £200m, but not for £2bn it seems. You have to wonder how we ended up here, don't you?

[Disgusted of Coventry]

...

Being given £10m rather than fighting and losing an expensive court case up to the Supreme court probably seemed like a very good deal.

...

But those are exactly the arguments that were used to justify retrospection: the Court case(s) would be lengthy, costly, and of uncertain outcome.

So why isn't Ecclestone the target of retro tax? They could surely shoehorn his case into the 'wholly exceptional' box.

[Laxmi]

Tax Havens

Intelligence sell-off, Westminster v Banks & SPINning out of control (E24) ? RT Going Underground

The second part of this goes into the untouched Tax havens - 23Trillion in Cayman Islands all supported by our government and the Crown with her privy council not allowing elections and instating their own people! Also, covers how the Govmt want to own and run all stories on Tax Avoidance so they can spin it their way - worth a watch and also potential show to voice our view on.

[Fireship]

But those are exactly the arguments that were used to justify retrospection: the Court case(s) would be lengthy, costly, and of uncertain outcome.

So why isn't Ecclestone the target of retro tax? They could surely shoehorn his case into the 'wholly exceptional' box.

Dear HMRC,

It would seem that Mr Ecclestone used perfectly legal tax planning, as did we. In which case please explain how the use of retrospection against us is “fair” when you clearly fail to treat others in the same manner even when there is substantially more to gain?

[eek]

Dear HMRC,

It would seem that Mr Ecclestone used perfectly legal tax planning, as did we. In which case please explain how the use of retrospection against us is “fair” when you clearly fail to treat others in the same manner even when there is substantially more to gain?

Because he is rich, which would be awkward to fight while you are poor and we can pick on you until you give up....

[BrilloPad]

Because he is rich, which would be awkward to fight while you are poor and we can pick on you until you give up....

That is part of the issue. The other part is that AB hates WG and is trying every way he can to get at him. But then any organization that allows employees to go round editing wikipedia with entries like "all muslims are terrorists" is going to turn a blind eye to personal vendetas and lying. Institutional corruption.

[screwthis]

Dear HMRC,

It would seem that Mr Ecclestone used perfectly legal tax planning, as did we. In which case please explain how the use of retrospection against us is “fair” when you clearly fail to treat others in the same manner even when there is substantially more to gain?

Because Eccelstone gives better back handers than Gittins.

Maybe Gittins was asked to grease the wheels and he refused??

[jlg15333]

No equality of treatment by HMRC ...

That is part of the issue. The other part is that AB hates WG and is trying every way he can to get at him. But then any organization that allows employees to go round editing wikipedia with entries like "all muslims are terrorists" is going to turn a blind eye to personal vendetas and lying. Institutional corruption.

There would seem to be one tax rule for wealthy individuals and multinationals and another for self employed IT workers who were trying to mitigate the effects shabby tax law (IR35).

[Fireship]

There would seem to be one tax rule for wealthy individuals and multinationals and another for self employed IT workers who were trying to mitigate the effects shabby tax law (IR35).

Clear evidence of being unfairly singled out and not being subjected to the same rules as everyone else?

Now HMRC, please explain you interpretation of reasonable expectation again because I would really like to hear it…..