Originally posted by Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
No To Retro Tax – Campaign Against Section 58 Finance Act 2008
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
Topic is closed
-
-
Originally posted by nevergiveup View PostCan we get that tweet deleted as it's giving people false hope of good news? Also find out who put it on and why? We don't need this cr@p.Comment
-
Met with my MP - Mark Menzies this morning
Things were a bit rushed it has to be said. He's already fully aware of the issue as at least 2 others have had meetings with him. So good efforts all round.
What I brought to the table was something a bit different. I gave him all my HMRC letters which do not ever show that they "had warned us". He liked them.
What was also key was that he felt that HMRC should be encouraged to do a deal with us all instead of chasing for money they will never get. I've advised him they already did do a deal with Suo Moto and that's when I really got his attention.
He's promised to arrange a meeting with Mr Guake and go through the issues and report back to us.
No offer of supporting the campaign but he definately was totally against retrospective taxation.
I presented him with the evidence HMRC knew about the scheme for a very long time too. Which seemed to help my argument some what.
I don't exactly feel mega positive but felt the meeting went well.
I could have done things a lot better but having only been given a 15 minute slot it's hard to get this kind of point across.Comment
-
Originally posted by lucozade View PostThings were a bit rushed it has to be said. He's already fully aware of the issue as at least 2 others have had meetings with him. So good efforts all round.
What I brought to the table was something a bit different. I gave him all my HMRC letters which do not ever show that they "had warned us". He liked them.
What was also key was that he felt that HMRC should be encouraged to do a deal with us all instead of chasing for money they will never get. I've advised him they already did do a deal with Suo Moto and that's when I really got his attention.
He's promised to arrange a meeting with Mr Guake and go through the issues and report back to us.
No offer of supporting the campaign but he definately was totally against retrospective taxation.
I presented him with the evidence HMRC knew about the scheme for a very long time too. Which seemed to help my argument some what.
I don't exactly feel mega positive but felt the meeting went well.
I could have done things a lot better but having only been given a 15 minute slot it's hard to get this kind of point across.
All or nothing as far as I'm concerned!Comment
-
Originally posted by lucozade View PostThings were a bit rushed it has to be said. He's already fully aware of the issue as at least 2 others have had meetings with him. So good efforts all round.
What I brought to the table was something a bit different. I gave him all my HMRC letters which do not ever show that they "had warned us". He liked them.
What was also key was that he felt that HMRC should be encouraged to do a deal with us all instead of chasing for money they will never get. I've advised him they already did do a deal with Suo Moto and that's when I really got his attention.
He's promised to arrange a meeting with Mr Guake and go through the issues and report back to us.
No offer of supporting the campaign but he definately was totally against retrospective taxation.
I presented him with the evidence HMRC knew about the scheme for a very long time too. Which seemed to help my argument some what.
I don't exactly feel mega positive but felt the meeting went well.
I could have done things a lot better but having only been given a 15 minute slot it's hard to get this kind of point across.Comment
-
No deal or no deal
Originally posted by lucozade View PostThings were a bit rushed it has to be said. He's already fully aware of the issue as at least 2 others have had meetings with him. So good efforts all round.
What I brought to the table was something a bit different. I gave him all my HMRC letters which do not ever show that they "had warned us". He liked them.
What was also key was that he felt that HMRC should be encouraged to do a deal with us all instead of chasing for money they will never get. I've advised him they already did do a deal with Suo Moto and that's when I really got his attention.
He's promised to arrange a meeting with Mr Guake and go through the issues and report back to us.
No offer of supporting the campaign but he definately was totally against retrospective taxation.
I presented him with the evidence HMRC knew about the scheme for a very long time too. Which seemed to help my argument some what.
I don't exactly feel mega positive but felt the meeting went well.
I could have done things a lot better but having only been given a 15 minute slot it's hard to get this kind of point across.Last edited by Dieselpower; 12 May 2012, 15:27.Join the campaign at
http://notoretrotax.org.ukComment
-
Originally posted by nevergiveup View PostWell done. Why should we do a deal. We did nothing wrong and besides, unless it was a very small % of what the majority owe people still would struggle to cough up...
All or nothing as far as I'm concerned!
Those MPs alarmed by the retrospective element from letters, face-to-facing and lobbying will simply have to band together and amend it in one of the following Finance Acts.
Knowledge of the Suo Motu circa 2001 should serve to highlight HMRC's ineptitude in legislating on similar [Montpelier] schemes and a disregard for legitimate expectation and the Rees rules. Cutting a deal for SM clients soon after just seems to cement the case.
I have spoken to HMRC several times about these issues. On comparing Suo Motu with MP, they considered the schemes to be 'similar if not identical'. On whether they could disclose details about the SM deal, they said they 'did not have the authority from those clients' to do so. On whether clients that have settled would get their money back if the retrospective element is overturned, their response was 'no, we'd consider their affairs closed'
After speaking to Whitehouse Friday, I'm happy to stay the course.Comment
-
While it is encouraging to hear of a "deal"
I personally have neither the funds or the intention of cutting a deal with HMRC In fact I wont be happy or appeased unless I have a full apology from them and financial compensation from them for what they have attempted and indeed have done with regard to their questionable methods and behaviour regarding S58. Unlike them I have not misled a finance minister, or misled Parliament or misinformed a high court judge ( no matter that he was HMRC biased). I have acted at all times within the law, before the pervertion of S58 and not withstanding the principles of MP's when in opposition and now in power, my principles do not change as such my position does not change.Comment
-
Originally posted by OldITGit View PostI personally have neither the funds or the intention of cutting a deal with HMRC In fact I wont be happy or appeased unless I have a full apology from them and financial compensation from them for what they have attempted and indeed have done with regard to their questionable methods and behaviour regarding S58. Unlike them I have not misled a finance minister, or misled Parliament or misinformed a high court judge ( no matter that he was HMRC biased). I have acted at all times within the law, before the pervertion of S58 and not withstanding the principles of MP's when in opposition and now in power, my principles do not change as such my position does not change.
But they are making a huge mistake. I want my own appeal tribunal. I bet the rest of you do too. My circumstances are unique. We are all individuals. (Awaits obvious response).Comment
-
Originally posted by BrilloPad View PostPersonally I would discuss a deal as I want to put this behind me and move on. However HMRC have made their position quite clear. In other words, what either of us think does not matter.
But they are making a huge mistake. I want my own appeal tribunal. I bet the rest of you do too. My circumstances are unique. We are all individuals. (Awaits obvious response).Comment
Topic is closed
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Comment