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

[Wembley53]

Have either of you had a meeting with this MP?

Not yet. But a request for a meeting will accompany the KO19.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Not yet. But a request for a meeting will accompany the KO19.

He's probably one of the MPs who received the sermon from Gauke, so be prepared for him playing very hard to get.

[smalldog]

Im really struggling here, has Gauke been told that HMRC DID NOT make the case the scheme didnt work, and if so what has he said about that small (HUGE!!!!) point that he seems happy to throw around as fact?

Prove it Gaukey, show us letters from HMRC saying the scheme didnt work..

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Im really struggling here, has Gauke been told that HMRC DID NOT make the case the scheme didnt work, and if so what has he said about that small (HUGE!!!!) point that he seems happy to throw around as fact?

I don't think he wants to listen or discuss it.

From another MP:

"he is acutely aware of the representations being made to MPs by constituents such as yourself and the campaign from 'No to Retro Tax'. But he is resolute that this is a tax avoidance measure closed by the previous Labour Government and the time to stop it was then, not now"

[Fireship]

How beneficial are you to the UK economy?? According to this I put in a LOT more graft than the average UK worker and I’m pretty certain the same can be said for most of us caught by S58.

Shame then that I and others will become a drain on the economy should HMRC (and Gauke) get their way and force me into bankruptcy!! Well done HMRC, well thought out!!

[moira under the stairs]

I don't think he wants to listen or discuss it.

From another MP:

"he is acutely aware of the representations being made to MPs by constituents such as yourself and the campaign from 'No to Retro Tax'. But he is resolute that this is a tax avoidance measure closed by the previous Labour Government and the time to stop it was then, not now"

What a complete to$$er, how could we have challenged it then ? when we were told that whilst the HR court process was in progress that had to be exhausted first ? But I suppose that's the spin of a politician !!

[seadog]

Im really struggling here, has Gauke been told that HMRC DID NOT make the case the scheme didnt work, and if so what has he said about that small (HUGE!!!!) point that he seems happy to throw around as fact?

Prove it Gaukey, show us letters from HMRC saying the scheme didnt work..

Technical Note 63 (TN63) was quite explicit that UK residents could not be taxed on this income.

However it is quite understandable that HMRC thought it should be taxable but as TN63 says for technical reason it could not be taxed. If they thought the income should be taxed it was thier duty to bring in legislation at the earliest opportunity to make it taxable, ie in 2003 and not 5 years later in 2008. After all it only took 3 months to close the Barclays loophole.

To continue to bully their "customers" that they were liable to pay tax when they already knew from TN63 that is was not due raises a few interesting issues.

Was it

1:- Nonfeasance, not carying out their duty.

2:- Demanding money with menances

3:- Conspirancy to pervert the course of justice (by delibrately denying us the chance to go to court under the pre 2008 legislation)

[funjim]

err

Technical Note 63 (TN63) was quite explicit that UK residents could not be taxed on this income.

However it is quite understandable that HMRC thought it should be taxable but as TN63 says for technical reason it could not be taxed. If they thought the income should be taxed it was thier duty to bring in legislation at the earliest opportunity to make it taxable, ie in 2003 and not 5 years later in 2008. After all it only took 3 months to close the Barclays loophole.

To continue to bully their "customers" that they were liable to pay tax when they already knew from TN63 that is was not due raises a few interesting issues.

Was it

1:- Nonfeasance, not carying out their duty.

2:- Demanding money with menances

3:- Conspirancy to pervert the course of justice (by delibrately denying us the chance to go to court under the pre 2008 legislation)

4 - all 3 of the above?

[smalldog]

The thing that gets on my t*ts is that I was working through my old files yesterday and found an SA statement from HMRC dated Aug 2009 showing my tax account was upto date, with nothing payable and a few pence actually owed to me. This was post S58 ruling and yet even then I had a statement from them that basically told me I was fine with nothing payable. Even at that stage, i.e. post S58 there was no reference to S58 or potential for additional monies owing.

So how does that reconcile with being told all along that it didnt work and I would owe?

IF what Gauke says is true and HMRC have always stated it doesnt work then surely monies would have been due and that statement should have SHOWED ALL MONIES HMRC THOUGHT WERE UNDER CHALLENGE!!!!! IT DOESNT BECAUSE THEY WERENT DUE, ITS QUITE SIMPLE.

[BarneyCool]

If that is the case

I don't think he wants to listen or discuss it.

From another MP:

"he is acutely aware of the representations being made to MPs by constituents such as yourself and the campaign from 'No to Retro Tax'. But he is resolute that this is a tax avoidance measure closed by the previous Labour Government and the time to stop it was then, not now"

Then why the F were they saying that they would repeal it if they got into power!
and why did they let the 4 years play out in the courts.
I cannot believe the amount of tulip that spills out of his compulsive lying gob!