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

[CanPayButWouldRatherNot]

We will lose his legal advice and probably his money too. I can't see him funding a defence for the FTTT when in prison - or funding the ECHR case. I might be wrong.

I just hope common sense will prevail and he is found innocent - then we don't have to find out.

time to edit the lyrics to "Free Nelson Mandela" and bang a video out !

[lucozade]

We will lose his legal advice and probably his money too. I can't see him funding a defence for the FTTT when in prison - or funding the ECHR case. I might be wrong.

I just hope common sense will prevail and he is found innocent - then we don't have to find out.

Has that been HMRCs plan all along.

[centurian]

We will lose his legal advice and probably his money too. I can't see him funding a defence for the FTTT when in prison - or funding the ECHR case. I might be wrong.

Not to mention being tarred with the same brush - make no mistake, HMRC will use a guilty verdict as justification for everything they have done with all the schemes he has touched.

I just hope common sense will prevail and he is found innocent - then we don't have to find out.

Well - and I appreciate this may not be a popular opinion on here for those affected, but I don't think common sense comes into it - if he has committed criminal fraud, then he thoroughly deserves to be convicted and sent down.

[Fog]

Time flies...

So my daughter started school today... Which got me thinking ... It's nearly 5 years since the first main court case - where I sat 6 months pregnant and listened to the ridiculous arguments being put forward against us.

5 years.

Still no way to pay and the interest racking up.

When will it end? Surely anti-retrospection has to win

[smalldog]

Has that been HMRCs plan all along.

Of course, get him banged up and our primary weapon has disappeared.

[BrilloPad]

Well - and I appreciate this may not be a popular opinion on here for those affected, but I don't think common sense comes into it - if he has committed criminal fraud, then he thoroughly deserves to be convicted and sent down.

I am convinced he is innocent. Its a stitch up.

So my daughter started school today... Which got me thinking ... It's nearly 5 years since the first main court case - where I sat 6 months pregnant and listened to the ridiculous arguments being put forward against us.

5 years.

Still no way to pay and the interest racking up.

When will it end? Surely anti-retrospection has to win

I know what you mean. I just want it to end.

[OnYourBikeGB]

Not to mention being tarred with the same brush - make no mistake, HMRC will use a guilty verdict as justification for everything they have done with all the schemes he has touched.



Well - and I appreciate this may not be a popular opinion on here for those affected, but I don't think common sense comes into it - if he has committed criminal fraud, then he thoroughly deserves to be convicted and sent down.

I take it from that that you also are of the view that if he is found innocent, that those that have brought a false claim against him should be held to account, and the manner of their investigations in their attempt to convict an innocent man should be taken into account when considering all other actions that they have been involved in? I doubt very much that you would find anyone on here that thinks think that someone who commits criminal fraud shouldn't be convicted. If you have read our discussions at all you should know that we have never defended fraud, our argument is that we had done nothing illegal, in fact that's why we joined the MP scheme, because of it's openness and transparency. We are aware of the consequences to us if he is convicted, but that doesn't mean we support criminal fraud.

[centurian]

I take it from that that you also are of the view that if he is found innocent, that those that have brought a false claim against him should be held to account, and the manner of their investigations in their attempt to convict an innocent man should be taken into account when considering all other actions that they have been involved in?

Depends on how strong the evidence is/was. If it just fell a few inches short of the bar for criminal conviction, then the prosecution have little cause to explain themselves - they have to prosecute if the evidence is there.

However, if the case is/was weak/non-existent - and it can be shown the prosecution was done for malicious purposes (which is was I think BP is suggesting), then yes, absolutely. It's a clear abuse of power.

Aggressive tax avoidance by its very nature sails very close to the wind in terms of fraud/evasion, so it isn't beyond the realms of possibility that he has stepped over that line. Likewise, I can also believe the claim that this is/was a speculative prosecution designed to simply shake the trees.

[honeyridges]

Aggressive tax avoidance by its very nature sails very close to the wind in terms of fraud/evasion, so it isn't beyond the realms of possibility that he has stepped over that line. Likewise, I can also believe the claim that this is/was a speculative prosecution designed to simply shake the trees.

I don't fully agree with that - it may sail close to the wind, but not necessarily. In our case everything was disclosed on the tax return so I see no hint of evasion. The aggressive nature of the scheme hinged on interpretation of the IOM DTA (pre BN66).

I take your point though that this may not be true of all the schemes WG was involved in, of which I have no knowledge.

Only reason I post is that I think it's dangerous to start swallowing the notion being pushed over recent years that aggressive tax avoidance is tantamount to evasion, with both occupying bordering sections of the same linear scale running from acceptable avoidance (ISAs, etc) to aggressive avoidance and then over some subtle boundary into evasion.

Evasion in my opinion is a different kettle of fish - it's a criminal offence and most likely involves deliberately misleading the authority to reduce/prevent liability.

I doubt you could be accused of evasion if you disclose all the facts - which is just as well as I doubt they'd pass up the opportunity to be doing us for that instead.

[PlaneSailing]

I don't fully agree with that - it may sail close to the wind, but not necessarily. In our case everything was disclosed on the tax return so I see no hint of evasion. The aggressive nature of the scheme hinged on interpretation of the IOM DTA (pre BN66).

I take your point though that this may not be true of all the schemes WG was involved in, of which I have no knowledge.

Only reason I post is that I think it's dangerous to start swallowing the notion being pushed over recent years that aggressive tax avoidance is tantamount to evasion, with both occupying bordering sections of the same linear scale running from acceptable avoidance (ISAs, etc) to aggressive avoidance and then over some subtle boundary into evasion.

Evasion in my opinion is a different kettle of fish - it's a criminal offence and most likely involves deliberately misleading the authority to reduce/prevent liability.

I doubt you could be accused of evasion if you disclose all the facts - which is just as well as I doubt they'd pass up the opportunity to be doing us for that instead.

To be clear, there is no such thing as 'aggressive tax avoidance' . HMRC have made this phrase up to justify their actions.

I have not avoided any tax. I have paid exactly what was due under the law and detailed this on my tax returns.