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

[warlord]

It might come out before that, indirectly. The credibility of the 5 HMRC officers has been completely undermined by this. We don't know the reasons, but HMRC know internally, and every tax barrister / QC involved in cases involving MacDougall Crew will be scrambling to find out what it was. WG will know, and that's leverage. The irony in all this of course being that we did nothing illegal, declared everything and were completely transparent in our tax dealings are are about to be destroyed by the same courts that have allowed HMRC to duck out and get away with it seems no questions asked - at least so far. We have a right to demand that they are as open and transparent as were, this case could have taken away what little legal defence we have. It's an outrage. I hope that WG goes after them personally, and I hope they go through the hell they have put us through. I'm sure WG doesn't need the money, but I'd happily make a contribution to make it happen.

Well said. X1000

[smalldog]

for the first time since I can remember we seem to have a chance to cause a stir with HMRC and actually get ahead of the game. Reason being govt have nothing to do with a case related to HMRC malpractice. Gauke et al in the treasury can only sit by and watch Watkin (hopefully) take HMRC apart legally...

GOD I REALLY HOPE SO!!!!

[BrilloPad]

for the first time since I can remember we seem to have a chance to cause a stir with HMRC and actually get ahead of the game. Reason being govt have nothing to do with a case related to HMRC malpractice. Gauke et al in the treasury can only sit by and watch Watkin (hopefully) take HMRC apart legally...

GOD I REALLY HOPE SO!!!!

And then a class action with no-win-no-fee for psychological damages.....

[the great escape]

payback

some nice numbers...

Tax Office sued for $6m after allegedly ruining a man's life

[SantaClaus]

some nice numbers...

Tax Office sued for $6m after allegedly ruining a man's life

HMRC take note:

"'The Tax Office is allowed to collect what it is entitled to collect,'' he said. ''It is not entitled to harass, to bully, to lie, to cheat, to force people into these situations when they don’t owe the money."

[Rob79]

HMRC take note:

"'The Tax Office is allowed to collect what it is entitled to collect,'' he said. ''It is not entitled to harass, to bully, to lie, to cheat, to force people into these situations when they don’t owe the money."

I would estimate that the ATO is about 10 years ahead of the UK in terms of its powers and ability to harass and bully.

The case here is also about negligence rather than misuse of powers. In the UK misuse of powers is JR territory. Negligence (duty of care not exercised) is a civil action where loss has to be proven.

Clearly in the Aussie case, the "loss" is of earning power as he spent a lot of time fighting his corner.

The UK legislation tends to protect HMG departments. For example, the owner of a well known film investment company tried to sue the then Head of HMRC over remarks the latter made to a journalist saying that the former was an example of the type of person who peddled tax avoidance schemes and who should therefore be prosecuted. The judge threw the case out saying that HMRC had a right, and perhaps even a DUTY, to identify and use such examples as part of their official policy.

I wish the Aussie guy well (presumably his case has been heard now) but would caution that the UK rules are different.

[SantaClaus]

I would estimate that the ATO is about 10 years ahead of the UK in terms of its powers and ability to harass and bully.

The case here is also about negligence rather than misuse of powers. In the UK misuse of powers is JR territory. Negligence (duty of care not exercised) is a civil action where loss has to be proven.

Clearly in the Aussie case, the "loss" is of earning power as he spent a lot of time fighting his corner.

The UK legislation tends to protect HMG departments. For example, the owner of a well known film investment company tried to sue the then Head of HMRC over remarks the latter made to a journalist saying that the former was an example of the type of person who peddled tax avoidance schemes and who should therefore be prosecuted. The judge threw the case out saying that HMRC had a right, and perhaps even a DUTY, to identify and use such examples as part of their official policy.

I wish the Aussie guy well (presumably his case has been heard now) but would caution that the UK rules are different.

Interesting Rob. Gives a whole new meaning to "all in it together" - i.e. Judges, the government and HMRC.

[Leyther70]

Having been on the receiving end of an ATO shafting (IR35 type stuff) I can honestly say they are equal to HMRC in the levels they will stoop.

Only they also hit you with compound interest and its ~10%, however the interest is tax deductable and they do at least negotiate a settlement period i.e. 2 years with you.

But as my accountant put it 'they are a set of C*NTS who make their own judgments and force them upon you knowing full well it will cost you ~30K to fight them in court and hence will likely just settle'

.... sound familiar but was individual case not a group case hence couldnt club together like we have done.

[RingStinger]

Chris Moyles tax tribunal influenced by adverse press...

... according to his advisors.

Seems a mickey-mouse scheme, but you can't help thnking his advisor has a point.

Appeal in £290million tax avoidance case involving Chris Moyles fails and former R1 DJ is now warned to expect huge tax bill | Daily Mail Online

[Fireship]

... according to his advisors.

Seems a mickey-mouse scheme, but you can't help thnking his advisor has a point.

Appeal in £290million tax avoidance case involving Chris Moyles fails and former R1 DJ is now warned to expect huge tax bill | Daily Mail Online

It’s easy to see why public opinion is so against tax avoidance especially when someone believes they can claim £1m in losses against £3,731 of sales in an industry which they have no knowledge or active involvement! You’d have to be naive at best to believe this was legitimate and wouldn’t get the attention of HMRC… Talk about taking the p**s!!

Sadly it seems we’re lumped in with these clowns even though our claims were based on our actual activities rather than some fictitious loss generating pastime. It’s people and practices such as this which stir up public opinion resulting in everyone being tarred with the same brush regardless of the facts or legitimacy! Any attempt to change the opinion of the public or MP’s is seriously impacted by cases such as this!