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

[BrilloPad]

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 !!

I am pleased you said that. Off to see my MP tomorrow night and I will bear that reply in mind.

[BarneyCool]

And whilst I'm at it

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"

The time to stop it was at the end of its first year in operation, but it wasn't. Perhaps Gauke should have started the process of repealing S58 as soon as he was in power but he didn't, he hid behind the courts. what a complete tool he is full of wind and p1ss.

[smalldog]

The time to stop it was at the end of its first year in operation, but it wasn't. Perhaps Gauke should have started the process of repealing S58 as soon as he was in power but he didn't, he hid behind the courts. what a complete tool he is full of wind and p1ss.

I know its only lil ole us beating him but I wonder if there will be any fallout in terms of his ministerial role due to this? Bet a lot of his own MP's are not impressed with his attitude and U-turning on this point.

[Guttersnipe]

I know its only lil ole us beating him but I wonder if there will be any fallout in terms of his ministerial role due to this? Bet a lot of his own MP's are not impressed with his attitude and U-turning on this point.

To be honest and slightly machiavellian, Gauke-bashing is not going to get us anywhere. He needs to be persuaded that it is to his political benefit that this clause is repealed. Given the number of people who will be made bankrupt by it and the common belief that it is worth spending money - which would otherwise go to HMRC as they bankrupt us - to publicise and lobby for repeal it should be obvious to him or made obvious to him that this is not going to quietly go away and will only gain in momentum. Momentum which will only publicise any inaction or unwillingness to follow through on rectifying what he and the coalition in general had unequivocally opposed before their election.

It is in his interest to lance the boil early. He can be a hero or he can be exposed. There are only two results for him.

[BarneyCool]

To be honest and slightly machiavellian, Gauke-bashing is not going to get us anywhere. He needs to be persuaded that it is to his political benefit that this clause is repealed. Given the number of people who will be made bankrupt by it and the common belief that it is worth spending money - which would otherwise go to HMRC as they bankrupt us - to publicise and lobby for repeal it should be obvious to him or made obvious to him that this is not going to quietly go away and will only gain in momentum. Momentum which will only publicise any inaction or unwillingness to follow through on rectifying what he and the coalition in general had unequivocally opposed before their election.

It is in his interest to lance the boil early. He can be a hero or he can be exposed. There are only two results for him.

Neither did voting for him!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Anyone willing to come forward?

Today I was presented with evidence which appears to show that HMRC allowed some Montpelier DTA claims.

Specifically they:

1) opened an enquiry into the user's tax return (within the 12-month window)
2) followed up with a letter citing Archer Shee and Section 739 as a basis for challenge
3) closed the enquiry with no amendment

The person who handed me this is aware of others who also had enquiries closed with nothing to pay.

PS.

HMRC cannot re-open enquiries once they have been closed, so anyone who comes forward has nothing to fear.

[smalldog]

Today I was presented with evidence which appears to show that HMRC allowed some Montpelier DTA claims.

Specifically they:

1) opened an enquiry into the user's tax return (within the 12-month window)
2) followed up with a letter citing Archer Shee and Section 739 as a basis for challenge
3) closed the enquiry with no amendment

The person who handed me this is aware of others who also had enquiries closed with nothing to pay.

PS.

HMRC cannot re-open enquiries once they have been closed, so anyone who comes forward has nothing to fear.

Interesting, does that set a precedent for the rest of us?

[SLB]

Interesting, does that set a precedent for the rest of us?

Exactly what I was thinking!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

The letter was headed:

Notice of Completion under Section 28A(5) TMA 1970

[Disgusted of Coventry]

"... 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"[/I]

Why?

Is Gauke assuming that a lengthy period of inactivity should lead to the legitimate expectation that everything's OK?

I'm pretty sure I've heard that argument refuted in the Courts.