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

[OnYourBikeGB]

Do you honestly think that you will ever get Gauke's acceptance by placating him? I'm sorry, but you're seriously deluded if you do.

The object of the Twitter parody account is to embarrass him, become a thorn in his side and draw attention of this issue to the public.

The fact that BeenGauked is being followed by a few influential people already after only existing for a few days is testament to the fact it is a good strategy.

Sad though it is, nothing you say or do will ever change Gauke's mind, he is a puppet of HMRC. Hmmm, unless you stood against him as a candidate at the next election, maybe.

I agree. There is no way on earth that S58 will be repealed. It just isn't going to happen. If there is no backlash or lampooning, he'll just roll over us, he couldn't care less about our position or how unjust it is, he won't be thinking that we've been decent to him, so he'll do us a favour. If S58 gets repealed on his watch, he loses face, that's the only thing he is interested in. If BeenGauked (very disappointed to learn that you weren't really him, but then he'd never be that honest) raises the profile of our cause, and can cause a little of bit of political discomfort and career damage to him, then I'm all for it. It won't save us, but he might think twice before he screws over someone else. The more what has happened to us is raised, especially in the light of the draconian new powers getting handed out to HMRC, the more I hope that courts will start to move back towards the letter of the law.

I've just been reading it. I followed a link through to here:

http://order-order.com/2012/07/24/da...voidance-firm/

Sooner or later, pigeons will come home to roost.

Also, I asked a question earlier and was wondering if anyone knows. If Shiner wins, do we also win? Do we get two bites of the cherry if he loses? i.e. if Shiner loses, is there a chance that the ruling may open up new defences?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Gauke is a lost cause

He's become even more fanatical than HMRC.

We have heard that even HMRC officials have expressed misgivings over AP but Gauke is determined to railroad it through.

In recent letters which have been passed to NTRT, Gauke claims that AP is not retrospective because it doesn't change anyone's tax position. This is totally disingenuous. AP creates a legally enforceable debt where none previously existed.

[BrilloPad]

What do you seek to achive by antagonising him? The only outcome of this is that he will bear more of a grudge and put further effort in to justify his actions.

If we want section 58 repealed, we may need his acceptace.

Sorry but my experiences with fathers4justice tell me that totally the opposite is true. But I am keeping well out until our case is in the public domain.

I know you are upset - we all are - but the time may come for us to stand up to be counted.

For the moment gentle needling him is the best course.

[SantaClaus]

Sorry but my experiences with fathers4justice tell me that totally the opposite is true. But I am keeping well out until our case is in the public domain.

I know you are upset - we all are - but the time may come for us to stand up to be counted.

For the moment gentle needling him is the best course.

If you can get me a Batman outfit, I may scale the Shard with you...

... if I hadn't done my back in

[Henrik]

Lost Cause - bankruptcy

I plan to voluntarily enter bankruptcy as soon as the 90 day time to pay period ends.

However my understanding is that at that point we will only have a bill for the principle sum - so say for example 100k.

I'm wondering but happens when HMRC get around to doing something about the interest. So say for example that stands at 50k at the end of 2014. It then takes HMRC another 5 or 10 years to take us to Tribunal to finalise it. We then have another bill for I guess 70k or 80k (I'm sure the clock keeps ticking on the interest on the interest.

So does that mean another bankruptcy event?

Becomes a never-ending saga if that is the case.

[warlord]

Henrik, I am in exactly the same position and thinking/asking the same question.
I really need to understand what happens regarding all my other debts like Mortgage, car loans etc, hopefully HMRC wont get a penny, as any profit that is in my house will need to be split.

[OnYourBikeGB]

I plan to voluntarily enter bankruptcy as soon as the 90 day time to pay period ends.

However my understanding is that at that point we will only have a bill for the principle sum - so say for example 100k.

I'm wondering but happens when HMRC get around to doing something about the interest. So say for example that stands at 50k at the end of 2014. It then takes HMRC another 5 or 10 years to take us to Tribunal to finalise it. We then have another bill for I guess 70k or 80k (I'm sure the clock keeps ticking on the interest on the interest.

So does that mean another bankruptcy event?

Becomes a never-ending saga if that is the case.

A terrible situation to be in, and there's absurd situation that if by any slim chance we were to actually win, you will have become bankrupt over a debt that never existed. It's just plain crazy.

By the way, for others reading this, the interest should stop on payment of the principle. How that works in a bankruptcy situation though, who knows? And who would put it past Gauke and co to change the law retrospectively again anyway?

[slatt]

I'm wondering but happens when HMRC get around to doing something about the interest. So say for example that stands at 50k at the end of 2014. It then takes HMRC another 5 or 10 years to take us to Tribunal to finalise it. We then have another bill for I guess 70k or 80k (I'm sure the clock keeps ticking on the interest on the interest.

I'm trying to find the link for you, but I believe that hmrc do not charge compound interest, only simple. i.e. they don't charge interest on the interest.

So if you owe 50k interest at the end of 2014 then in theory that's what it should still be in 2024

That is of course assuming they don't change the rules at any time in the future, backdating them 20 years, all whilst denying any type of retrospective action....

[Henrik]

A terrible situation to be in, and there's absurd situation that if by any slim chance we were to actually win, you will have become bankrupt over a debt that never existed. It's just plain crazy.

By the way, for others reading this, the interest should stop on payment of the principle. How that works in a bankruptcy situation though, who knows? And who would put it past Gauke and co to change the law retrospectively again anyway?

I agree that the interest stops on the principle.However I'd be very surprised if it stops accumulating on the interest due. However I had a conversation with my legal advisor last night and she wasn't sure given the unusual circumstances.

[OnYourBikeGB]

I agree that the interest stops on the principle.However I'd be very surprised if it stops accumulating on the interest due. However I had a conversation with my legal advisor last night and she wasn't sure given the unusual circumstances.

The interest is simple interest, not compound, so as it stands at the moment, there wouldn't be any more interest to be added, but of course that could change.