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

[swede]

I have had another reply from my MP, standard response from Gauke. Also my MP has looked at notoretrotax.org.uk and positive words about an amendment. full details sent to Whitehouse and DR.

[lucozade]

On reflection

Having had 2 days to reflect on my meeting with my MP I've sent him a letter clearly indicating what my feelings are and what the goal of the meeting was. I wanted to make it absolutely clear to him that I will not do any deals with HMRC because I did not do anything against the law.

In addition i've asked that he doesn't just send a letter to Mr Gauke but actually meets him face-to-face to ask the question - "Have HMRC lied to Parliament, MPs and the public" regarding this and to fully show support to our campaign.

He has all the evidence to proceed.

[Morlock]

...Yes, we are all individuals...

I'm not.

[foolishboy]

Meeting with MP Update

Am off to meet my MP at 16:30 who is a prominent Cabinet Minister so I am not exactly expecting his full co-operation!

However the main thrust of my argument is going to be the Conservatives postion whilst in opposition and in particular David Gauke's continual denial to do anything but rebut our questions since he joined the Treasury.

Specifically I want him to support me in getting Mr Gauke to acknowledge our position and review our argument. Given that their position was so crystal clear whilst in opposition I am not going to accept being fobbed off with "the times have changed"

Now where did I put my suit of armour and war hammer.........

JUst an update from my meeting on friday: Whilst he wasnt overly commital to being for or against retrospective tax he seemed genuinely concerned when I mentioned that payments on account and challenging the schemes validity did not happen until May 2007.
I told him that David Gauke was sending out boilerplate letters stating that notice to pay on account had been given all along and he said he would take the matter up with him directly.

I said that we wanted an ammendment to S.58 so that it only acted prospectively from March 2008 and his response was along the lines of "well I dont think you will achieve that but you may have a decent case for it only applying as far back as May 2007." He asked that I forward him the May 2007 letter so that he could send it to David Gauke.

Will keep you updated...

[Ninja]

Why May 2007?

JUst an update from my meeting on friday: Whilst he wasnt overly commital to being for or against retrospective tax he seemed genuinely concerned when I mentioned that payments on account and challenging the schemes validity did not happen until May 2007.
I told him that David Gauke was sending out boilerplate letters stating that notice to pay on account had been given all along and he said he would take the matter up with him directly.

I said that we wanted an ammendment to S.58 so that it only acted prospectively from March 2008 and his response was along the lines of "well I dont think you will achieve that but you may have a decent case for it only applying as far back as May 2007." He asked that I forward him the May 2007 letter so that he could send it to David Gauke.

Will keep you updated...

After all Jane Kennedy said this at the 2008 Finance Bill Committee

"Jane Kennedy: I hope I get this right. It is because HMRC has not consistently made the case throughout the time period that the scheme does not work, that it is a deliberate and wilful avoidance scheme that flouts the 1987 legislation, and that it would be challenged."

I think our case is clear cut. Propective or nothing

[DonkeyRhubarb]

After all Jane Kennedy said this at the 2008 Finance Bill Committee

"Jane Kennedy: I hope I get this right. It is because HMRC has not consistently made the case throughout the time period that the scheme does not work, that it is a deliberate and wilful avoidance scheme that flouts the 1987 legislation, and that it would be challenged."

I think our case is clear cut. Propective or nothing

HMRC* only came up with the "1987 angle" in November 2007, and the first time they communicated this to anyone was February 2008 (one month before BN66 was published).

* actually it wasn't HMRC who dreamed this up, it was a Tax barrister

[smalldog]

After all Jane Kennedy said this at the 2008 Finance Bill Committee

"Jane Kennedy: I hope I get this right. It is because HMRC has not consistently made the case throughout the time period that the scheme does not work, that it is a deliberate and wilful avoidance scheme that flouts the 1987 legislation, and that it would be challenged."

I think our case is clear cut. Propective or nothing

Has this enormous contradiction to gaukes boiler plate letter been pointed out to him yet?

Seems a bit of a slam dunk to me

[lucozade]

HMRC* only came up with the "1987 angle" in November 2007, and the first time they communicated this to anyone was February 2008 (one month before BN66 was published).

* actually it wasn't HMRC who dreamed this up, it was a Tax barrister

Does that mean we have scope to take this Tax Barrister to the cleaners for his actions?

When we win I want to see proper justice prevail over those who set out to ruin us through lies.

[TalkingCheese]

Does that mean we have scope to take this Tax Barrister to the cleaners for his actions?

When we win I want to see proper justice prevail over those who set out to ruin us through lies.

I guess that barrister only told them what was theoretically possible. How HMRC/parliament apply/communicate it is nothing to do with him I would have thought. The legal eagles are only doing their job in applying the law. They have not lied or misled I believe.

but I agree, there needs to be some serious repercussions as a result of this fiasco !

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Payment on Account

Be careful what you are telling your MP.

Some people may only have been advised by HMRC to make a PoA in 2007 but that is not true for everyone, especially those who joined in the early years.

For example, HMRC's testimony to the High Court reveals that Huitson was advised to make a PoA for 2001/2 in June 2004.

Forget PoA - it's a red herring.

The key points of rebuttal to the Gauke letter are outlined in H006.