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

[DotasScandal]

They broke the big rule. Tax avoidance for the rich is allowed - even encouraged. It is not allowed for the plebs.

I could turn communist at this rate. As a staunch Thatcherite that is quite a feat.

You nailed it. MP crossed a red line and that could not be allowed. A response so disproportionate is a means to send a message to others that would be tempted to try their luck.

[smalldog]

You nailed it. MP crossed a red line and that could not be allowed. A response so disproportionate is a means to send a message to others that would be tempted to try their luck.

Agree with this entire chain of thought. It begins at the top of course, the govt then to Hartnett making his sweetheart deals for corporate tax avoiding firms who were let off millions for a massively reduced settlement. Putting to one side they should have not used the avoidance instrument to start with, and should in theory been made an example of like Jimmy Carr! And yes they should have paid all tax owed plus interest and possibly penalties. But they didnt............why? Exactly as we suspect, old boys club, probably public/private school chums.

The likes of Goldman and other corps would never change their behaviour if they can pay less tax overall in a sweetheart settlement with no interest or penalties. However the story is very very very different for the GP.

Its all gonna come tumbling down.....now where is my copy of animal farm.....

[SantaClaus]

Agree with this entire chain of thought. It begins at the top of course, the govt then to Hartnett making his sweetheart deals for corporate tax avoiding firms who were let off millions for a massively reduced settlement. Putting to one side they should have not used the avoidance instrument to start with, and should in theory been made an example of like Jimmy Carr! And yes they should have paid all tax owed plus interest and possibly penalties. But they didnt............why? Exactly as we suspect, old boys club, probably public/private school chums.

The likes of Goldman and other corps would never change their behaviour if they can pay less tax overall in a sweetheart settlement with no interest or penalties. However the story is very very very different for the GP.

Its all gonna come tumbling down.....now where is my copy of animal farm.....

Don't forget my signature...

[BrilloPad]

BP has been known to make the odd exaggeration or two - but on this occasion, he has hit the nail on the head.

Tax avoidance for the rich was tacitly encouraged - to encourage them to remain the country - 2% of something is better than 45% of nothing.

Mass marketed tax avoidance to the reasonably well off was a cardinal sin

Nice that after 76,039 posts of drivel I manage to get one right. Shall I stop now while I am ahead?

I got an email from WG yesterday regarding my thoughts about not appealing APN then go bankrupt. WG can see the advantages from my position which is interesting. Basically HMRC are in a no-win situation with people like me who have no assets whatsoever.

He also hit the nail on the head for why I am so cheesed off with this. Its nothing to do with the money. Its the sense of injustice that sticks.

Public servants is an oxymoron. My wife delivered food from the food bank yesterday. It is put at the benefits office for people to ask. The person that took the delivered was compemptuous of my wife. This attitude pervades the entire civil service - who are neither civil nor provide a service.

I still hope that the liars and cheats will reap what they have sowed.

I am going to have a long hard think about what to do next.

[elpinar]

cant we usr this somehow

is there nothing in here that is common enough ground for us to be also get the APNs suspended until .....

UK film partnership investors force HMRC to suspend up-front payment notices | STEP


'There are several grounds for arguing that the APNs in these cases were unlawful', noted Collins. These include the fact that the absence of a right to appeal is not compatible with human rights legislation. Another possible challenge is that the legislation is retrospective, because it allows HMRC to issue notices against any scheme now registered under the DOTAS (Disclosure of Tax Avoidance Schemes) regime, even if the scheme was begun before the APN rules came into force. -

[DonkeyRhubarb]

They broke the big rule. Tax avoidance for the rich is allowed - even encouraged. It is not allowed for the plebs.

This doesn't explain why Montpelier have been singled out in a way that other promoters of mass market schemes have not.

There are loads of companies, many also IoM based, pushing schemes to contractors and other "plebs". We haven't seen their offices unlawfully raided, directors arrested and put on trial under bogus pretences.

For some reason, Montpelier seem to have been marked out for special treatment.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

is there nothing in here that is common enough ground for us to be also get the APNs suspended until .....

UK film partnership investors force HMRC to suspend up-front payment notices | STEP


'There are several grounds for arguing that the APNs in these cases were unlawful', noted Collins. These include the fact that the absence of a right to appeal is not compatible with human rights legislation. Another possible challenge is that the legislation is retrospective, because it allows HMRC to issue notices against any scheme now registered under the DOTAS (Disclosure of Tax Avoidance Schemes) regime, even if the scheme was begun before the APN rules came into force. -

It hasn't deterred HMRC issuing APNs.

Personally I don't think citing Human Rights, or that there is a retrospective element, stands much of a chance.

The only solid grounds for challenging APNs is that they are invalid due to specific features of a particular scheme.

[SantaClaus]

It hasn't deterred HMRC issuing APNs.

Personally I don't think citing Human Rights, or that there is a retrospective element, stands much of a chance.

The only solid grounds for challenging APNs is that they are invalid due to specific features of a particular scheme.

I agree. Human rights didn't stop the courts ignoring Section 58.
And we think we live in a "civilised" country

This bit of the article link is interesting:

"Another judicial review, which arises from HMRC's inconsistent approach to the issue of tax enquiries, is also due to be heard in March, for which, again, UHY is the instructing accountant. 'If HMRC lose either case it could have far reaching implications for the validity of a large number of APNs', said Avient. "

[ASB]

HMRC's ongoing vendetta against Montpelier

HMRC hoodwinked Parliament in to passing unprecedented draconian retrospective legislation. There have been unlawful raids on Montpelier's offices. Arrests without charge. Clients and staff interviewed under caution. Then the collapse of WG's trial.

There is further evidence in this recent FTT case. Note how HMRC attempted to treat Montpelier clients far more harshly than other promoters. It didn't work because the FTT ruled against them.

http://www.financeandtaxtribunals.go...64/TC04286.pdf

HMRC probably only did a deal with George because we was a deGraaf client, not Montpelier.

I don't think it is any coincidence that we are the first contractors to receive APNs. And this is despite the fact that HMRC know full well they are chancing their arm issuing them to us because the Montpelier scheme was not notifiable under DOTAS.

The ftt were fairly unimpressed with hmrc to say the least.

but it does seem that the implementation of the transactions was a bit inept and it seems to be that which hmrc focussed on. I agree entitely with the ftt; but I do wonder whether those where penalties were not sought were better implemented.

Certainly does seem to be some elements of a witch hunt; distraction technique.

[smalldog]

If these guys win the JR I dont see how this doesnt apply to all APN's, see extract:

'There are several grounds for arguing that the APNs in these cases were unlawful', noted Collins. These include the fact that the absence of a right to appeal is not compatible with human rights legislation. Another possible challenge is that the legislation is retrospective, because it allows HMRC to issue notices against any scheme now registered under the DOTAS (Disclosure of Tax Avoidance Schemes) regime, even if the scheme was begun before the APN rules came into force. - See more at: UK film partnership investors force HMRC to suspend up-front payment notices | STEP