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

[lucozade]

Bankruptcy Offences — Leathes Prior

Be very careful!

So does that mean, as it currently stands, I'm not allowed to sell my car and buy another one?

[SantaClaus]

Bankruptcy Offences — Leathes Prior

I'm not a lawyer, but I would have thought you can only commit an offence if you know you are going to be bankrupt.

I personally have every faith in the legal system and tax courts and believe justice will be served and I will not be made bankrupt. So it's business as usual for me.

[eek]

I might be asking a rhetorical question, but whats the point of the HOL then if they have no teeth?

To cause Embarrassment and delay. They also provide a layer of scrutiny which the hoc may not have time to provide.

That is of course utterly irrelevant when it comes to the finance act

[Manu]

Did Gauke lie to Parliament over consultation?

https://www.dotas-scandal.org/gauke-...n-the-process/

Good point DS. How do we get this highlighted? Nobody is ready to hear anymore.

[DotasScandal]

Wanted to run it past you guys to check if I understood that right. I think I did...
I will take to Twitter later today and send to a few news outlets...see if something sticks.

Well, I thought it was a bad thing to lie to MPs, especially if it's to push a personal vendetta against a handful of "avoiders"...

Good point DS. How do we get this highlighted? Nobody is ready to hear anymore.

[lucozade]

Nothing better than informing your MP

Dear Mark Menzies,

With regards to Finance Bill 2014 committee meeting held on 17/06/2014, I write to inform you that minister David Gauke made a false statement:

From Finance Bill Committee transcript , 17th June 2014, Mr Gauke said:

“The consultation on the draft legislation earlier this year generated over 20 responses”

From “Tackling marketed tax avoidance , Summary of Responses”, March 2014

“HMRC received 847 responses to the consultation

A breakdown of the capacities in which respondents made their comments is below:

• 12 from representative bodies
• 29 from consultants
• 245 from accountancy firms
• 5 from law firms
• 547 from individuals
• 9 from other businesses “

Did the Minister deliberately mislead the committee to force his retrospective legislation through?

In fact is this any different to when HRMC misled Parliament into passing S58 in 2008. Jane Kennedy
later confirmed in writing that "she was told by HMRC that only a very small number of people would be affected, and certainly not the thousands that have been impacted'.

It's this kind of inaccuracy that could cost me everything yet cost MPs and civil servants nothing.

Yours sincerely,

[speling bee]

Dear Mark Menzies,

With regards to Finance Bill 2014 committee meeting held on 17/06/2014, I write to inform you that minister David Gauke made a false statement:

From Finance Bill Committee transcript , 17th June 2014, Mr Gauke said:

“The consultation on the draft legislation earlier this year generated over 20 responses”

From “Tackling marketed tax avoidance , Summary of Responses”, March 2014

“HMRC received 847 responses to the consultation

A breakdown of the capacities in which respondents made their comments is below:

• 12 from representative bodies
• 29 from consultants
• 245 from accountancy firms
• 5 from law firms
• 547 from individuals
• 9 from other businesses “

Did the Minister deliberately mislead the committee to force his retrospective legislation through?

In fact is this any different to when HRMC misled Parliament into passing S58 in 2008. Jane Kennedy
later confirmed in writing that "she was told by HMRC that only a very small number of people would be affected, and certainly not the thousands that have been impacted'.

It's this kind of inaccuracy that could cost me everything yet cost MPs and civil servants nothing.

Yours sincerely,

I would go for 'misleading' rather than 'false', as 847 is more than 20.

[lucozade]

I would go for 'misleading' rather than 'false', as 847 is more than 20.

too late, by I do say false then mislead later :-)

[tax is taxing]

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

I hear the same too. A few off shore (4 currently but expecting another 2-4) are interested in fighting APN collectively. Their wealth can't be discounted but nothing in comparison to the onshore group.

Current on-shore fighting consortium is a formidable group. They certainly have very deep pockets. I do hope they'll act quickly and decisively both before and after the issuance of APNs.

[Fireship]

Good point DS. How do we get this highlighted? Nobody is ready to hear anymore.

I tweeted it yesterday but it was too late by the time I'd got hold of Whitehouse to confirm numbers. However, now it's posted online we should certainly tweet it to anyone who will listen!