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

[DotasScandal]

The Law Society blasts Treasury minister Gauke over retrospective tax legislation and disregarding the rule of law.

https://www.dotas-scandal.org/tax-po...-city-lawyers/

www.dotas-scandal.org

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Surely only a tiny fraction of what you've collectively paid professional bodies would be needed to engage someone to do a thorough investigation on him, private dick stylee?

Gauke, as Minister in charge of HMRC, is just the public face of AP.

Going after him might make us feel good but it wouldn't stop the policy.

The only thing that would give the Government pause for thought is if it affected their election campaign. I'm referring to the Tories of course because the LibDems are dead in the water.

As an example, I suspect vested interests influenced their decision to ditch minimum alcohol pricing and plain cigarette packaging.

[DotasScandal]

Gauke, as Minister in charge of HMRC, is just the public face of AP.

Going after him might make us feel good but it wouldn't stop the policy.

The only thing that would give the Government pause for thought is if it affected their election campaign. I'm referring to the Tories of course because the LibDems are dead in the water.

As an example, I suspect vested interests influenced their decision to ditch minimum alcohol pricing and plain cigarette packaging.

Fully agree, DR.


www.dotas-scandal.org

[DonkeyRhubarb]

What would worry the Government (Tory Party)

Not losing a few tens of thousands of votes over AP that's for sure.

In my opinion there's only one thing that would worry them...

If UKIP (or Labour) had a lot more money to spend on their general election campaign.

[regron]

Updated link of what is happening with the Bill due to it being carried over to the new session of parliment:

Finance Bill 2013-14 to 2014-15 — UK Parliament

Notably:

"The Public Bill Committee is expected to consider the Bill on Tuesday 10 June, Thursday 12 June and Tuesday 17 June 2014."

Will be interesting to read the minutes when our part of the bill is finally discussed !!! Not that we should expect anything positive !!!

[smalldog]

READ THIS!!!!

Finance Bill (10th June 2014)

Written evidence submitted by Mr Raoul Strachan (FB 02)

Subject: Accelerated Payment Notices

I am writing to express my deep concern at the measures contained in this year’s Finance Bill which, if enacted, will give draconian powers to HMRC and cause serious hardship for many innocent people, while undermining the fundamental principle that individuals should be considered innocent until proven guilty.

As you will know, Clause 192 onwards of the Finance Bill outlines proposals that will give HMRC the power to issue ‘Accelerated Payment Notices' in cases where a DOTAS registered tax arrangement is under enquiry or appeal, as well as the ability to issue ‘Follower Notices’, which will allow them to rule that a taxpayer’s financial arrangements are "the same or similar" to those which have been defeated in the tax courts.

These changes will essentially allow HMRC to demand immediate and upfront payment of any arbitrary amount of disputed tax, with no right of appeal. This power will apply retrospectively to anyone whose tax arrangements are under inquiry or appeal going as far back as 2004. This is despite reassurances from the Government that further retrospective legislation will only be used in "wholly exceptional" circumstances.



I believe that these proposals undermine the fundamental principle that everyone has the right to be presumed to be complying with the law unless proven otherwise. Demanding immediate and upfront payment of an arbitrary amount of tax, with no right of appeal and without being able to have your case head before the courts, gives excessive power to HMRC to interpret legislation and case law to its advantage and is a draconian extension of state power against the individual.

I also believe that the retrospective nature of these proposals is deeply offensive. Those who are currently subject to inquiries from HMRC will have been given an expectation as to how their cases would be dealt with. Retrospectively changing the rules half-way through the process goes against natural justice and removes the right of people to have their actions judged under the law as it stood at the time.

The Exchequer Secretary has claimed that these measures are not retrospective. However, this statement is false. The changes will apply to any legitimate and registered tax planning arrangement entered into as far back as 2004, and retrospectively change the way that tax disputes are dealt with. There is the real danger that if the Exchequer Secretary is allowed to defend this legislation by saying that the changes are not retrospective, MPs may be misled into passing an extremely draconian and unjust retrospective change to the law which will have serious financial repercussions for tens of thousands of businesses and individuals. Indeed, you will be aware that the Treasury Select Committee has strongly criticised this aspect of the legislation and said that the Government has not made a case as to why these measures should apply retrospectively.

It is surely perfectly reasonable that any new tax legislation should only apply going forward, and should not be applied retrospectively to those cases which are already in the system.

June 2014

[lucozade]

Well done Raoul !

Finance Bill (10th June 2014)

[lucozade]

Regarding this year's Finance Bill...

Note the sneaky inclusion of the word "charging" to avoid having to mention Accelerated Payment.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/j...ill_020414.pdf

"6. There are no measures in the Bill with unannounced, charging retrospective effect."

How do we respond to point 6 and 7. Surely this is just utter crap.

7. "A precise warning of the intention to legislate with retrospective effect" - REALLY !!!!

[bananarepublic]

How do we respond to point 6 and 7. Surely this is just utter crap.

7. "A precise warning of the intention to legislate with retrospective effect" - REALLY !!!!

Regarding 7), what they are saying is that previously they warned users of the listed schemes that if they persisted then measures would be introduced retrospectively back to when the warning was given.

I don't see any issue in this - the government made a clear warning. My problem is that this did not apply to us - no warning was given. They just retrospectively changed the law going back 21 years.


... which of course makes Gaukes justification for supporting S58 nonsense. If they could retrospectively attack us then why doesn't he retrospectively attack other schemes without warning. I am sure the courts would find that legal as well ...

[BrilloPad]

Regarding 7), what they are saying is that previously they warned users of the listed schemes that if they persisted then measures would be introduced retrospectively back to when the warning was given.

I don't see any issue in this - the government made a clear warning. My problem is that this did not apply to us - no warning was given. They just retrospectively changed the law going back 21 years.


... which of course makes Gaukes justification for supporting S58 nonsense. If they could retrospectively attack us then why doesn't he retrospectively attack other schemes without warning. I am sure the courts would find that legal as well ...

I remember back in 2007 when MP tried to take this taken to FTT. HMRC responded with retrospection like a biolt from the blue.