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

[freedomFighter2014]

APNs

2.6.2: "the relevant tribunal or court considers a risk to the Exchequer will develop if a repayment is made and gives a direction."

So basically they don't have to pay us back!?


"rule that the taxpayer must provide adequate security before being repaid." <- what does this mean?

[bananarepublic]

OF course it isnt, she just made it up on the spot!

I think she confused APN's issued as a result of a DOTAS scheme with those issued as a result of a follower notice.

That or she was making it up on the spot.

Either way I think she was wrong.

[Rob79]

Lin Homer did get a bit confused in her testimony to the Treasury Select Committee but corrected that in her attempted grilling by the PAC.

There is a concern that a First Tier Tribunal decision carries insufficient weight upon which to base a Follower Notice. This is because many FTT judges are not legally trained or experienced and thus may be more prone to mistakes of law than say the Court of Appeal.

This is not accepted by HMRC who maintain that a FTT decision that is "final" is enough to issued FN and then of course an APN.

Whether an FN following a FTT decision is capable of being subjected to a judicial review or some form of litigation over creating a legitimate expectation could be an interesting question for anybody willing to fund it.

[PlaneSailing]

Answer:Solicitor

Lin Homer did get a bit confused in her testimony to the Treasury Select Committee but corrected that in her attempted grilling by the PAC.

There is a concern that a First Tier Tribunal decision carries insufficient weight upon which to base a Follower Notice. This is because many FTT judges are not legally trained or experienced and thus may be more prone to mistakes of law than say the Court of Appeal.

This is not accepted by HMRC who maintain that a FTT decision that is "final" is enough to issued FN and then of course an APN.

Whether an FN following a FTT decision is capable of being subjected to a judicial review or some form of litigation over creating a legitimate expectation could be an interesting question for anybody willing to fund it.

IMHO the APN legislation will get challenged at a judicial review. Then, as you say, follower notices will also get challenged at a judicial review. I expect this to drag on at least as long as S58.

The only people getting rich off this are the lawyers and solicitors.

I wonder what Guake did before being a MP? Clue in the title of this post.

[SantaClaus]

Favour for a friend of NTRT

Dear all

I'd like to ask a favour on behalf of somebody who helps the NTRT Steering Group on a daily basis and has put a lot of work into the campaign.

He has had a 6 year gap from the industry and is looking to get back into IT after a business venture turned sour.

He comes from an Investment Banking developer background with a somewhat "legacy" skillset of Visual C++, MFC and SQL, plus a good knowledge of financial products and exchange connectivity.

He realises he is instantly at a disadvantage when looking for a developer position and would happily accept a support contract, or even better a legacy development position (London area).

If any of you could help him, please drop me a PM. I know he'd be extremely grateful.

Many thanks

Santa

[the great escape]

Sacha Baron Cohen and top Tory donors may owe thousands to taxman | Mail Online


As I tweeted house of lords last week, " If govt wants money back from party donors, ask for govt back". Get this govt out,. Their hypocrisy can't stand. When you receive stolen goods, both parties are guilty. Without an elected majority, you're out of a job Mr Gauke. You're destroying the heart of british free trade with your following. If an high paid HMRC official was on an investment scheme, then it's game over. we will find you.

[tax is taxing]

Judicial review - APN

I'm surprised at no mention of the much anticipated Judicial review.....

Does anybody have any update on this?

[Boycie]

This evening's Evening Standard

Sam Leith: Are B-listers just pawns in the tax game? - Comment - London Evening Standard

Sam Leith: Are B-listers just pawns in the tax game?
We feel the blush of confidence that wealthy celebrities who invested in film funding schemes were on the wrong side of it

Tax dodger: Gary Barlow
Sam Leith
A A A
Monday 21 July 2014

Nothing quite tickles our appetite for indignation like seeing a fresh bunch of famouses named and shamed in the Sunday papers for their involvement in a possible tax avoidance scheme. Sploosh! Like a bucket of Chum off the back of a shark boat they go: Borat! David Baddiel! Him of Men Behaving Badly, the one without the ears! Kate Adie! That cricketer! The scoundrels! Alleged scoundrels, sorry.
It’s all very exciting but as we enter the blood frenzy, shouldn’t we wonder a little bit if we’re not being played? Individual stories are what grab the attention: Sacha Baron Cohen serves, at the top end of the crackdown narrative, the role that White Dee from Benefits Street serves at the bottom.

Both make a good distraction from boring old corporate tax avoidance, which robs us of much more money than a TV personality, and at which government — because corporate tax avoiders have lobbyists and own media and put ex-ministers on boards — is much more minded to connive.

HMRC “never discusses individual cases”, they say solemnly. But you can be fairly sure that they aren’t exactly making it difficult for reporters to identify just whose records at Companies House will put them in the frame.

I don’t doubt that these film schemes were a bit dodgy. The clear and funny implication is that, in the post Sex Lives of the Potato Men era, nobody could regard an investment in the British film industry as a straight-faced attempt to make either money or art.

But I do doubt that all those who followed the advice of their financial advisers and signed up did so in conscious bad faith.

We feel the blush of confidence that wealthy celebrities who invested in film funding schemes were — wherever the moral line is to be found — on the wrong side of it.

I know a good many one-man “companies” on the corporation tax rate who would tut-tut away without the slightest self-questioning. As with many situations of mild moral indeterminacy, the differing perspectives available can be set out in the form of a conjugation: I am tax-efficient; you are tax-avoiding; he is Gary Barlow.

Which is why it seems to me that rather than endorsing some daft, loophole-filled scheme set up by former Prime Minister Gordon Brown in an effort to suck up to British film for Cool Britannia purposes, then repenting of it and seeking to plug the loopholes with the guts of a bunch of B-list celebrities, the powers that be might work on getting the rules clear in the first place, and then making enforcement a matter of principle rather than public relations.

[tax is taxing]

Well said

Sam Leith: Are B-listers just pawns in the tax game? - Comment - London Evening Standard

Sam Leith: Are B-listers just pawns in the tax game?
We feel the blush of confidence that wealthy celebrities who invested in film funding schemes were on the wrong side of it

Tax dodger: Gary Barlow
Sam Leith
A A A
Monday 21 July 2014

Nothing quite tickles our appetite for indignation like seeing a fresh bunch of famouses named and shamed in the Sunday papers for their involvement in a possible tax avoidance scheme. Sploosh! Like a bucket of Chum off the back of a shark boat they go: Borat! David Baddiel! Him of Men Behaving Badly, the one without the ears! Kate Adie! That cricketer! The scoundrels! Alleged scoundrels, sorry.
It’s all very exciting but as we enter the blood frenzy, shouldn’t we wonder a little bit if we’re not being played? Individual stories are what grab the attention: Sacha Baron Cohen serves, at the top end of the crackdown narrative, the role that White Dee from Benefits Street serves at the bottom.

Both make a good distraction from boring old corporate tax avoidance, which robs us of much more money than a TV personality, and at which government — because corporate tax avoiders have lobbyists and own media and put ex-ministers on boards — is much more minded to connive.

HMRC “never discusses individual cases”, they say solemnly. But you can be fairly sure that they aren’t exactly making it difficult for reporters to identify just whose records at Companies House will put them in the frame.

I don’t doubt that these film schemes were a bit dodgy. The clear and funny implication is that, in the post Sex Lives of the Potato Men era, nobody could regard an investment in the British film industry as a straight-faced attempt to make either money or art.

But I do doubt that all those who followed the advice of their financial advisers and signed up did so in conscious bad faith.

We feel the blush of confidence that wealthy celebrities who invested in film funding schemes were — wherever the moral line is to be found — on the wrong side of it.

I know a good many one-man “companies” on the corporation tax rate who would tut-tut away without the slightest self-questioning. As with many situations of mild moral indeterminacy, the differing perspectives available can be set out in the form of a conjugation: I am tax-efficient; you are tax-avoiding; he is Gary Barlow.

Which is why it seems to me that rather than endorsing some daft, loophole-filled scheme set up by former Prime Minister Gordon Brown in an effort to suck up to British film for Cool Britannia purposes, then repenting of it and seeking to plug the loopholes with the guts of a bunch of B-list celebrities, the powers that be might work on getting the rules clear in the first place, and then making enforcement a matter of principle rather than public relations.

Any body who are able to rub just 2 brain cells, would agree with your insightful narrative.

[centurian]

Any body who are able to rub just 2 brain cells, would agree with your insightful narrative.

It wasn't his narrative, but the text of the Standard article.