Originally posted by moira under the stairs
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
No To Retro Tax – Campaign Against Section 58 Finance Act 2008
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
Topic is closed
-
-
And whilst I'm at it
Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View PostI 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"Comment
-
Originally posted by BarneyCool View PostThe 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.Comment
-
Originally posted by smalldog View PostI 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.
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.Comment
-
Originally posted by Guttersnipe View PostTo 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 He needs to be persuaded that it is to his political benefit that this clause is repealed.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.Comment
-
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.Last edited by DonkeyRhubarb; 24 May 2012, 16:58.Comment
-
Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View PostToday 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.Comment
-
Originally posted by smalldog View PostInteresting, does that set a precedent for the rest of us?Comment
-
Comment
-
Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View Post"... 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]
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.Comment
Topic is closed
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Comment