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

[nevergiveup]

Exactly what I was thinking!

Would be nice but I can't ever imagine that would be the case!

Remember the Suo Moto deal. We weren't offered that either.

[OnYourBikeGB]

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"

I read it like this. Our message is getting through. The fact that he had a meeting means he knows that there is a possibility of it becoming very awkward. He clearly has put his career ahead of his morals and is worried how he will look if he's seen to take any action to support us. He also knows that the opposition may well use this to embarrass him and by pulling the Tories to his line he's trying to avoid losing a debate should it get raised. Gone is all pretence of HMRCs claims because they have been exposed as lies. Now we're down to blaming Labour. Now is the time we must continue to push and if any Tory is towing the line because of Gauke, then they must be persuaded to follow their principles. This is the first time we have had any evidence we have breached a defence. Well done to the NTRT and everyone who has been fighting back.

[VictorValiant]

Anyone willing to come forward-would it were myself

Interesting that Archer-Shee is quoted as this was thrown back at me circa 2004-5 before disappearing into archive oblivion. Presumably this is all pre-Padmore which really highlights the fact that all along the justification for the scheme not working was a fishing exercise no more no less and whatever came up on the hook was deemed worthy of usage. Fairground antics -hook a duck and see what the underside brings.

[centurian]

He also knows that the opposition may well use this to embarrass him and by pulling the Tories to his line he's trying to avoid losing a debate should it get raised.

He won't lose a debate - there is no way that 320+ MP's are going to vote to repeal BN66 in a separate debate. It would only occur if it was buried deep inside another bill, much like BN66 was.

Labour don't want to repeal BN66 - they just want to embarras the Tories for their hypocritical stance - particularly Gauke - and that is what Gauke is worried about. How can he say that the time to stop BN66 was in 2008, but it can't be done now.

At least the message is starting to get through, which can only be a possible thing

[OnYourBikeGB]

He won't lose a debate - there is no way that 320+ MP's are going to vote to repeal BN66 in a separate debate. It would only occur if it was buried deep inside another bill, much like BN66 was.

Labour don't want to repeal BN66 - they just want to embarras the Tories for their hypocritical stance - particularly Gauke - and that is what Gauke is worried about. How can he say that the time to stop BN66 was in 2008, but it can't be done now.

At least the message is starting to get through, which can only be a possible thing

I was referring to the finance committee, where he could indeed lose the debate.

[orientalist]

He won't lose a debate - there is no way that 320+ MP's are going to vote to repeal BN66 in a separate debate. It would only occur if it was buried deep inside another bill, much like BN66 was.

Labour don't want to repeal BN66 - they just want to embarras the Tories for their hypocritical stance - particularly Gauke - and that is what Gauke is worried about. How can he say that the time to stop BN66 was in 2008, but it can't be done now.

At least the message is starting to get through, which can only be a possible thing

Surely they can stop BN66 in 2008 retrospectively

[moggy]

I read it like this. Our message is getting through. The fact that he had a meeting means he knows that there is a possibility of it becoming very awkward. He clearly has put his career ahead of his morals and is worried how he will look if he's seen to take any action to support us. He also knows that the opposition may well use this to embarrass him and by pulling the Tories to his line he's trying to avoid losing a debate should it get raised. Gone is all pretence of HMRCs claims because they have been exposed as lies. Now we're down to blaming Labour. Now is the time we must continue to push and if any Tory is towing the line because of Gauke, then they must be persuaded to follow their principles. This is the first time we have had any evidence we have breached a defence. Well done to the NTRT and everyone who has been fighting back.

please tell me you didn't just use tory and principles in the same sentence!!

[moira under the stairs]

Where's this weekends good news then guys....

[travellingknob]

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.

On the face of it that sounds like gunpowder. When was it closed ? Before or after BN66 was announced ?

Isn't it true that most peoples enquiry notices were originally opened citing Archer-Shee ?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

On the face of it that sounds like gunpowder. When was it closed ? Before or after BN66 was announced ?

Isn't it true that most peoples enquiry notices were originally opened citing Archer-Shee ?

It was closed in 2006.

The letter came from a Senior Special Investigator so it will be hard for HMRC to claim this was accidental.

The person who tipped me off believes there were others who had their enquiries closed. In fact this was the reason he stayed in the scheme ie. because HMRC had accepted DTA claims.