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

[Rob79]

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

I'm sure you're correct but to be honest it's not really my bag. I really would have nothing substantive to add and at the moment I have enough to occupy me elsewhere.

I look forward to following the campaign though.

[Rob79]

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.

I would agree with you on APN and CTD.

The FN situation is interesting. It is contrary to natural justice that you can be pinged with a penalty even if you are proven correct. This is made worse by the fact that you cannot appeal an FN to an objective body. Again it will be interesting to watch this unfold although that may happen more in the tax avoidance cases going through Court now.

[lucozade]

I'm sure you're correct but to be honest it's not really my bag. I really would have nothing substantive to add and at the moment I have enough to occupy me elsewhere.

I look forward to following the campaign though.

If you are affected then join up and help contribute to the costs. The more the merrier.

[slatt]

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.

If the tax payer wins then apparently there wont be a penalty, this is because any penalty will be a percentage of the outstanding tax and if we win then there wont be any outstanding tax

50% of nothing is nothing

[OnYourBikeGB]

Just a thought, and taking a line from the recent court ruling and newsletter, it struck me how much clearer it is to say on general public forums that 'the government changed the law retrospectively so they could win a current court case' than just to say they 'changed the law retrospectively'. We make the assumption that Joe Bloggs would take the time to think it through, as opposed to instantly realising what Govt / HMRC have done.

[banchini]

2nd shot - LSS and compliance...

Having read the Newsletter, I had a question regarding any settlement; the letter mentions discussions with HMRC and compliance with the Litigation and Settlement Strategy (LSS).

Having had a cursory glance at the LSS, one guidance note reads..

Where HMRC believes that it is likely to succeed in litigation and that
litigation would be both effective and efficient, it will not reach an out
of court settlement for less than 100% of the tax, interest and
penalties (where appropriate) at stake. It therefore follows that, if the
customer is unwilling to concede in such cases, HMRC will seek to
resolve the dispute by litigation as quickly and efficiently as possible.

So I am wondering, how can we ever be compliant without having to pay full amount.

Interestingly, I can understand why no numbers are being presented in the letter, but can anyone provide any indication of what it could be.......?

Banchini

[the great escape]

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.

If your not NTRT, then what interest have thee - in this forum Robo? Are you facing an APN, follower notice or some other financial event horizon as a result of some tax avoidance planning? Majority of posters on here are looking down the hmrc barrel.

[the great escape]

Tax avoidance: Celebrities named in leaked documents revealing offshore financial dealings - Home News - UK - The Independent

Why can't oppositon stand up in PM questions and ask "Does the PM think it morally correct that his right to power was based on inappropriate funding?". It staggers me that they are beyond review. And more so that said donaters of e.g. 816k aren't saying on the quiet "I thought we had a deal - I help you, you help me". If there's a story that the The Royals themselves have been on the tax version of I'll 'take that', then you can kiss that royal assent malachy good bye Mr Cameron - oops, there's. one. Democracy > Hyprocrisy > Aristocracy Good ol' Britain.

Prince Charles's £700m estate accused of tax avoidance | UK news | The Guardian

[centurian]

Why can't oppositon stand up in PM questions and ask "Does the PM think it morally correct that his right to power was based on inappropriate funding?".

They are worried it will backfire - it only takes one of those many celebrities to be a Labour donor for them to have egg on their face.

Even if Labour don't explicitly know which ones they are, it's a near statistical certainly that at least one of the 33,000 has donated a reasonable amount to the Labour party at some point.

[Rob79]

If the tax payer wins then apparently there wont be a penalty, this is because any penalty will be a percentage of the outstanding tax and if we win then there wont be any outstanding tax

50% of nothing is nothing

Very true but often in such situations, relief might be claimed on say 100 but the "win" is to be able to claim say 90 because 10 has been paid in fees to the promoter and HMRC has a real downer on those.

Therefore a penalty reduced to the absolute minimum (15% normally) on 10 might still apply?

Seems contrary to natural justice but for those sort of sums would anybody have the resources of time and money to kick off?