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

[BrilloPad]

Is there a parliamentary body we can complain to that we are not being properly represented?

I don't find it acceptable for all our MPs to be rolling out a template reply. It shows there lack of interest and that they are only interested in their own careers and not safeguarding ours.

You complain to your own MP. Don't be surprised if you get a templated reply....

[SantaClaus]

Is there a parliamentary body we can complain to that we are not being properly represented?

I don't find it acceptable for all our MPs to be rolling out a template reply. It shows there lack of interest and that they are only interested in their own careers and not safeguarding ours.

The Adjudicator (who so far we have found to be toothless) and the Parliamentary Ombudsman, who will no doubt be the same.

[SantaClaus]

Its probably worth reading Parliament Act 1911 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia when you get a chance. That stopped the House of Lords from rejecting bills to just delaying them.

In the case of the Finance Bill the most that would happen if the House of Lords vote against the Bill would be to introduce a 1 month delay.

Interesting.

[Laxmi]

Another Template from MP - what are we Paying them for!!!

You complain to your own MP. Don't be surprised if you get a templated reply....

-------------------------
Thanks for getting in touch, and for sending me your views.
These new powers will first have to be fully scrutinised by Parliament as part of the Finance Bill, but I do appreciate your concerns and I will ensure they reach the Treasury for a direct response.
In the meantime, the Department has issued the following information in relation to the clause:
'The Government understand many people are worried about the payment of disputed tax due to their use of schemes either disclosed under DOTAS, or that have failed in another party’s litigation about the same or a similar scheme and the Minister and Finance Bill Committee are aware of these.
However, the Government is clear there is no inherent presumption that tax under dispute should sit with the taxpayer rather than the Exchequer. Indeed, under current law, there are a number of circumstances where the tax sits with the Exchequer while the liability is finalised. Therefore, it is clear these proposals do not introduce a new principle, but rather extend the range of circumstances where the tax sits with the Exchequer while the final liability is determined.
The legislation states that in the case of a follower notice, this will only be issued where the same or very similar tax avoidance scheme has been shown to fail in another party’s litigation case. As the consultation response document states, “HMRC will carefully consider whether a case is sufficiently similar to the scheme that has failed in litigation before issuing a scheme failure notice and decisions will be subject to a governance process”.
A taxpayer can then accept the judgement also applies to them and settle the amount of tax due. Or, if they believe the case not to be relevant in their circumstances, they can tell HMRC why they think it is not relevant, but would then be subject to a penalty if they do not have a reasonable basis for their conclusion. This removes the incentive that currently exists to delay settlement with HMRC after a follower notice has been issued and encourages taxpayers to settle their case and pay the tax they owe much sooner than at present.
In addition, for all existing disclosures of schemes (ie those made before Royal Assent), HMRC is reviewing these in order to identify it is satisfied that no additional liability is due. I can assure you that an ‘accelerated payment notice’ would only be issued to tax avoidance schemes under DOTAS that are disputed by HMRC. It is not the case that all schemes under DOTAS will automatically be disputed by HMRC and so required to pay the disputed tax.'
Very best wishes for now,
--------------------------------------


And this was Zac Goldsmith - who stated on TV that MPs don't know what they're voting for, is fighting to get MP Recall implemented and stated that MPs don't have have to show up to work.

[jbryce]

Tories?

-------------------------
Thanks for getting in touch, and for sending me your views.
<snip>
under DOTAS will automatically be disputed by HMRC and so required to pay the disputed tax.'
Very best wishes for now,
--------------------------------------


And this was Zac Goldsmith - who stated on TV that MPs don't know what they're voting for, is fighting to get MP Recall implemented and stated that MPs don't have have to show up to work.

I think you need to get in front of him or, at the very least, reply and make the point that you know his response is off a template. It may embarrasses him into investigating further.

[SantaClaus]

I think you need to get in front of him or, at the very least, reply and make the point that you know his response is off a template. It may embarrasses him into investigating further.

I'm very surprised at Zac Goldsmith's answer as I thought he was very supportive. Gauke must have put something in the Parliamentary water supply.

Agree with jbryce though; Laxmi should demand a face-to-face.

[DotasScandal]

That's because it creeps up on us slowly. Nothing important happens overnight or is brought to our attention by huge Daily Mail headlines. In fact, the newspapers serve as a smokescreen to keep our minds occupied by trivia, as Laxmi alluded too.

Yes, "Boiling Frog Syndrome"... Tried and tested over centuries, and sadly still as effective as ever.

[PlaneSailing]

Fully scrutinized my arse.

And then a protracted legal challenge. Again, I think I made the wrong career choice, I should have been a lawyer. They're the only ones getting rich off all this nonsense.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

And then a protracted legal challenge. Again, I think I made the wrong career choice, I should have been a lawyer. They're the only ones getting rich off all this nonsense.

Yes, just look at our case.

Each promoter used lawyers to validate the scheme before selling it.
HMRC used lawyers to get their own opinions.
Other lawyers came up with the retro.
Montpelier used lawyers in the JR (HC, CofA, SC)
PwC used lawyers in the JR
HMRC used lawyers in the JR.
Montpelier used lawyers to prepare the ECtHR application.
NTRT used lawyers to polish the adjudicator complaint, seek various advice.
Shiner used lawyers at the strike-out.
Montpelier is using lawyers at the FTT.
Shiner is using lawyers at the FTT.
...

[PlaneSailing]

Yes, just look at our case.

Each promoter used lawyers to validate the scheme before selling it.
HMRC used lawyers to get their own opinions.
Other lawyers came up with the retro.
Montpelier used lawyers in the JR (HC, CofA, SC)
PwC used lawyers in the JR
HMRC used lawyers in the JR.
Montpelier used lawyers to prepare the ECtHR application.
NTRT used lawyers to polish the adjudicator complaint, seek various advice.
Shiner used lawyers at the strike-out.
Montpelier is using lawyers at the FTT.
Shiner is using lawyers at the FTT.
...

And if the Finance Bill Committee, despite overwhelming arguments to the contrary, vote along party lines and pass the APN legislation, this will start again. Rinse, repeat...

<cynical>
You'd be surprised how many MPs are lawyers
</cynical>