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

[SantaClaus]

Just bumping this up the thread once.

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

[screwthis]

I know a good many one-man “companies” on the corporation tax rate who would tut-tut away without the slightest self-questioning.

No one like that on this forum

[Rob79]

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

Does anybody have any update on this?

There has been much discussion in the professional press about the possibility of a JR case being taken. The various accounting and legal bodies have slightly different takes on the position but all want to have FN's in particular modified (how far that goes is a matter of debate) and for APN's to be used only where there is clear avoidance.

Now that the lobbying effort (well funded and briefed) has largely failed there does seem to be a dampening of enthusiasm amongst these bodies. I suspect that they are saving their ammunition for the threatened law to allow HMRC to remove funds from bank accounts. (This is subject to "consultation" and will be "narrowly targeted" but smart money says it will be passed in law next year and will suffer mission creep rapidly).

Therefore a JR challenge may fall to promoters of schemes. Do they have a motive to do this? If the current slew of schemes fail or get APN's soon, even if they are eventually won, what's in in for them? The writing is on the wall for the present iterations of schemes. If the cases now going through the Courts don't kill these schemes, HMRC will change the law to stop them. So why defend them?

Perhaps to preserve the image and integrity of the promoter in order to sell the next generation (already in development)? I suggest it might be easier to just close down and phoenix into a new company with a new name and image, removed from the tarnished one of the old schemes.

That leaves individuals. No reason why a fighting group could not be organized (I'm not offering) and funded. The problem there is who is gong to pay. If HMRC is smart, it will pick off schemes over a period so as to prevent a critical mass of people coming together. Would you fund a fighting group if you were not certain you would get an APN?

Also have a look at the statistics of HMRC on JR. They win over 90% of cases. A JR challenge says basically "is this agency operating outside the remit of Parliament in a fair way". If the law is being operated, hard to see that a case can be made. You can challenge the Government over retrospection (which they and the Opposition deny) but again hard to see a case. You could go to ECJ. Tax jurisdiction challenges there rarely succeed as part of the EU constitution protects sovereign states tax base.

The cost of a JR? Perhaps a minimum of £100k.

Who has enough at stake to take on the above, which has to be a long shot?

[lucozade]

There has been much discussion in the professional press about the possibility of a JR case being taken. The various accounting and legal bodies have slightly different takes on the position but all want to have FN's in particular modified (how far that goes is a matter of debate) and for APN's to be used only where there is clear avoidance.

Now that the lobbying effort (well funded and briefed) has largely failed there does seem to be a dampening of enthusiasm amongst these bodies. I suspect that they are saving their ammunition for the threatened law to allow HMRC to remove funds from bank accounts. (This is subject to "consultation" and will be "narrowly targeted" but smart money says it will be passed in law next year and will suffer mission creep rapidly).

Therefore a JR challenge may fall to promoters of schemes. Do they have a motive to do this? If the current slew of schemes fail or get APN's soon, even if they are eventually won, what's in in for them? The writing is on the wall for the present iterations of schemes. If the cases now going through the Courts don't kill these schemes, HMRC will change the law to stop them. So why defend them?

Perhaps to preserve the image and integrity of the promoter in order to sell the next generation (already in development)? I suggest it might be easier to just close down and phoenix into a new company with a new name and image, removed from the tarnished one of the old schemes.

That leaves individuals. No reason why a fighting group could not be organized (I'm not offering) and funded. The problem there is who is gong to pay. If HMRC is smart, it will pick off schemes over a period so as to prevent a critical mass of people coming together. Would you fund a fighting group if you were not certain you would get an APN?

Also have a look at the statistics of HMRC on JR. They win over 90% of cases. A JR challenge says basically "is this agency operating outside the remit of Parliament in a fair way". If the law is being operated, hard to see that a case can be made. You can challenge the Government over retrospection (which they and the Opposition deny) but again hard to see a case. You could go to ECJ. Tax jurisdiction challenges there rarely succeed as part of the EU constitution protects sovereign states tax base.

The cost of a JR? Perhaps a minimum of £100k.

Who has enough at stake to take on the above, which has to be a long shot?

Sounds like we are totally screwed then.

[BrilloPad]

Sounds like we are as totally screwed as we were before then.

FTFY

Only 20 posts today? Come on guys - get posting.....

[OneUnited]

There has been much discussion in the professional press about the possibility of a JR case being taken. The various accounting and legal bodies have slightly different takes on the position but all want to have FN's in particular modified (how far that goes is a matter of debate) and for APN's to be used only where there is clear avoidance.

Now that the lobbying effort (well funded and briefed) has largely failed there does seem to be a dampening of enthusiasm amongst these bodies. I suspect that they are saving their ammunition for the threatened law to allow HMRC to remove funds from bank accounts. (This is subject to "consultation" and will be "narrowly targeted" but smart money says it will be passed in law next year and will suffer mission creep rapidly).

Therefore a JR challenge may fall to promoters of schemes. Do they have a motive to do this? If the current slew of schemes fail or get APN's soon, even if they are eventually won, what's in in for them? The writing is on the wall for the present iterations of schemes. If the cases now going through the Courts don't kill these schemes, HMRC will change the law to stop them. So why defend them?

Perhaps to preserve the image and integrity of the promoter in order to sell the next generation (already in development)? I suggest it might be easier to just close down and phoenix into a new company with a new name and image, removed from the tarnished one of the old schemes.

That leaves individuals. No reason why a fighting group could not be organized (I'm not offering) and funded. The problem there is who is gong to pay. If HMRC is smart, it will pick off schemes over a period so as to prevent a critical mass of people coming together. Would you fund a fighting group if you were not certain you would get an APN?

Also have a look at the statistics of HMRC on JR. They win over 90% of cases. A JR challenge says basically "is this agency operating outside the remit of Parliament in a fair way". If the law is being operated, hard to see that a case can be made. You can challenge the Government over retrospection (which they and the Opposition deny) but again hard to see a case. You could go to ECJ. Tax jurisdiction challenges there rarely succeed as part of the EU constitution protects sovereign states tax base.

The cost of a JR? Perhaps a minimum of £100k.

Who has enough at stake to take on the above, which has to be a long shot?

You may be correct, however did you receive the latest NTRT newsletter, its not their take on it.

[Rob79]

Thinking a bit more on this.

Perhaps the best option is to piggy back on other people's JR challenge.

A JR challenge is against the introduction and operation of FN/APN. Those instruments impact more than just contractor schemes of various flavours. They also impact the sort of high profile tax avoidance schemes seen in the press of late.

The promoters of some of the film schemes (now found to be tax avoidance schemes) funded the lobbying effort. If there are funds left over, then funding a JR might not be out of the question. IF they do, IF they get a positive result, THEN it should be possible to "read across" and deny FN/APN any legal basis.

I don't know if the contractor sector is capable of sufficient coordination to fund and run a JR challenge. I suspect that the various groups mentioned on these boards have different aims and objectives, so perhaps not? (Again, I'm certainly not volunteering or offering anything in that regard).

[Rob79]

You may be correct, however did you receive the latest NTRT newsletter, its not their take on it.

NO, I'm not a member of the NTRT mailing list and suspect that I would have little to add to what seems to be a relatively narrow point, albeit one that impacts a lot of people.

JR is one of those issues where you could put 4 experts in a room and they'll come out with 5 views.

The central point I'd make is that JR is a gamble to be tried only as a last resort as the odds (in relation to FN/APN) are not good.

I have no view as to whether a JR challenge on the NTRT issue is better or worse.

[OneUnited]

NO, I'm not a member of the NTRT mailing list and suspect that I would have little to add to what seems to be a relatively narrow point, albeit one that impacts a lot of people.

JR is one of those issues where you could put 4 experts in a room and they'll come out with 5 views.

The central point I'd make is that JR is a gamble to be tried only as a last resort as the odds (in relation to FN/APN) are not good.

I have no view as to whether a JR challenge on the NTRT issue is better or worse.

Mmmmmm my suspicions were true then. Become a member then and it might enlighten you.

[bananarepublic]

Thinking a bit more on this.

Perhaps the best option is to piggy back on other people's JR challenge.

A JR challenge is against the introduction and operation of FN/APN. Those instruments impact more than just contractor schemes of various flavours. They also impact the sort of high profile tax avoidance schemes seen in the press of late.

The promoters of some of the film schemes (now found to be tax avoidance schemes) funded the lobbying effort. If there are funds left over, then funding a JR might not be out of the question. IF they do, IF they get a positive result, THEN it should be possible to "read across" and deny FN/APN any legal basis.

I don't know if the contractor sector is capable of sufficient coordination to fund and run a JR challenge. I suspect that the various groups mentioned on these boards have different aims and objectives, so perhaps not? (Again, I'm certainly not volunteering or offering anything in that regard).

Given our experience I think it is very unlikely that a court will rule against the APN's. In fact many people, including myself chose to pay a type of voluntary APN - we bought a CTD. An APN merely regularises this and as long as they honour the CTD purchase date (when calculating interest later) - which it looks like they will do - it even has certain advantages over a CTD.

The Follower Notice is a different matter. As I understand it, if someone ignores a follower notice and continues with their tax appeal a penalty of up to 50% of the tax due must be paid EVEN if the scheme is found to be legal later on. This might be difficult from a "human rights" angle to justify.