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

[SantaClaus]

Well done to all that took part in this exercise (and shame on those who didn't - you have NO excuse whatsoever)
Actually I used to despise Twitter myself (did not have an account until a couple weeks ago) - but I understood it's a must when I saw the sheer number of politicians that are on it (practically all of them!)... It is easy to understand why when you think about it:most of these guys are textbook narcissists, and as such love to brag about any an all little "achievements" of theirs that they THINK might make them look good (it is btw shocking how uninteresting most of these feeds are).
It's interesting for us, because it means direct access to people otherwise difficult to reach.

I believe the biggest worry of a politician is to see their public image tarnished, that is why they do NOT want inconvenient truths about things they do, did, or voted on discussed in the open. Twitter allows us to do just that!
Politicians HATE when noise is made around an issue they are involved in, because they never know how things are gonna turn out if it gets too loud. That's the moment where you want to make the biggest rattle possible

From what I got of the debate, there seems to have been a distinct feel in the committee that people were actually WATCHING them, and would demand accountability. That was precisely the objective. It must remain clear that this new retro tax stunt is going to be a more difficult piece to implement than S.58.
With that being said, we should of course not remain solely keyboard warriors, and there are other concrete initiatives being taken in the background. I would like to encourage everyone to be creative and to take matters in their own hands - there are many ways our cause can be defended.
This fight is only starting!

Well said DotasScandal.

It would have been impossible to sabotage the passing of the bill yesterday, but I am proud of what we achieved. Interacting with Finance Committee members in realtime on social media whilst they were discussing a bill must be a first.

Oh... and we bypassed the "dead tree press" who are completely useless and have a hidden agenda

[OnYourBikeGB]

Anyone notice this on Ian Swales Twitter feed?

Minister confirms that accelerated payments will not be required for pre DOTAS schemes. HMRC will publish a list of the schemes involved

I may have missed any earlier discussion, it's been a busy day, so apologies if it isn't news.

Giving this a bump in case it gets buried. He may be wrong, but according to Ian Swales it's been confirmed that APNs will not apply to pre-DOTAS schemes. The quote is a cut and paste from his twitter feed.

[BrilloPad]

Giving this a bump in case it gets buried. He may be wrong, but according to Ian Swales it's been confirmed that APNs will not apply to pre-DOTAS schemes. The quote is a cut and paste from his twitter feed.

And to bump DR's response on this :-

We won't know until HMRC publish the list of schemes affected in the next few weeks.

They shouldn't be able to issue APNs for pre-2004 use of the scheme.

[centurian]

Yeah, there is a subtle, but very crucial difference between those two statements - will a scheme be excluded from APN completely because it existed pre-2004, or will it only apply to payments after 2004.

Even if it is the former, that could mean some s58 users are affected by APNs and others not - depending on when their specific scheme started.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

The Consortium

A bit of background.

It was formed after the consultation was published in January.

It is made up of promoters (companies not individuals). Only one that I know of is in the contractor space.

As of the end of April, 12 firms had joined but more were expected to sign up.

They have been using Whitehouse for the political side of the campaign; tax, human rights and public law barristers for the legal side.

By pooling costs they are able to raise a large fighting fund.

--------------

ps. I did hear that several offshore promoters had formed a separate grouping to fight AP but I don't have any more details at the moment

[OnYourBikeGB]

Yeah, there is a subtle, but very crucial difference between those two statements - will a scheme be excluded from APN completely because it existed pre-2004, or will it only apply to payments after 2004.

Even if it is the former, that could mean some s58 users are affected by APNs and others not - depending on when their specific scheme started.

Not really. He clearly says 'schemes', not 'scheme years'. I don't see anything ambiguous.

That said, it's a twitter feed after all, not the rule of law, but the statement itself is clear.

[centurian]

It kind of makes sense. If I were HMRC, I wouldn't want the hassle of trying to split the liability to a scheme that spans pre and post DOTAS, apportioning CTDs etc. so would probably be pushing for post-DOTAS only schemes to be included in APNs.

Of course, not every s58 scheme is pre-DOTAS, although I believe many of them are.

Only time will tell when the list is published.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Not really. He clearly says 'schemes', not 'scheme years'. I don't see anything ambiguous.

That said, it's a twitter feed after all, not the rule of law, but the statement itself is clear.

I agree with centurian.

Even the legislation, as drafted, is not clear.

I guess HMRC will interpret it in their own way.

[BrilloPad]

I agree with centurian.

Even the legislation, as drafted, is not clear.

I guess HMRC will interpret it in their own way.

They will interpret it one way. Then retrospectively interpret it a different way.

I had a phone chat to someone at Tiger TV yesterday. NTRT arranged it. They are thinking about getting me in front of a camera. Hopefully they have better cases than me so I wont be used. But someone has to stand up.

I had to break off the phone call as I burst into tears talking about the affect it has had on my children.

I got asked how I feel towards HMRC. None of my reply will ever make it onto television.

[smalldog]

And to bump DR's response on this :-

bump again, Gauke during the debate confirmed verbally pre 2004 are not affected. Therefore the theory being the MP scheme is not included, at least the original incarnation. However we need to see the details.