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

[smalldog]

I wonder if HMRC have a slush fund to access such websites.....a bit like the police did with the Climate Change protesters.

Even if they dont some senior HMRC bods wont be able to resist splashing their cash to get hold of the goods, temptation would be too great.

Thanks for the contribution HMRC management

[drlemming]

MP follow up letter

I have received the standard response from my MP (Mark Hunter LibDem) quoting what Gauke had to say.

I have written back to ask him to challenge the assertion that they had told us throughout to pay on account. Will let you know what the outcome is......

[zippo]

Standard letter from DG

Can I get a copy of the standard letter being sent out by DG, Im in the process of wrtiing my second letter to my MP and I want to ensure that I cover eacha nd every point off.

Thanks
Zippo

[Dieselpower]

you need document H006

Can I get a copy of the standard letter being sent out by DG, Im in the process of wrtiing my second letter to my MP and I want to ensure that I cover eacha nd every point off.

Thanks
Zippo

you need document H006
regards

[Leyther70]

you need document H006
regards

I love this, we now have our own library

[TAF4]

Even if they dont some senior HMRC bods wont be able to resist splashing their cash to get hold of the goods

These guys have access to public sector slush funds through departmental Credit Cards that don't require receipts.


Now all we need is an upright citizen from within Hector's army to turn whistleblower. The evidence is available on NTRT of 'malfeasance in public office'.

[BarneyCool]

Did not know what it meant!

These guys have access to public sector slush funds through departmental Credit Cards that don't require receipts.


Now all we need is an upright citizen from within Hector's army to turn whistleblower. The evidence is available on NTRT of 'malfeasance in public office'.

But now I do. I think that is the best and most appropriate quote that I have read that accurately describes what has and still is going on here.

Malfeasance in office, or official misconduct, is the commission of an unlawful act, done in an official capacity, which affects the performance of official duties.

[Morlock]

Gladly Donated

Well done to everyone who has put that great effort into the NTRT campaign and website. I have signed up to the tune of what I can afford this month, and would like to set up a standing order for £50 a month going forwards. Can we make this option available?
M.

[screwthis]

E005-FOI

Just read the above document. The responses to the FOI requests are simply staggering.

As well as dodging every request, they maintain the following assertion:

"It [HMRC] strongly believes that [blah blah] none of the scheme users could have been in any doubt that they were deliberately flouting the clear intention of the 1987 legislation"

and that we "ought to have been aware of the likely consequences of their [our] wilful attempt to flout the law."

I strongly suspect that none if any scheme users had even heard of the 1987 legislation at the time. It's not really something you need to be familiar with to be an IT contractor or property developer. (C++, Java, SQL yes... obscure legislation not so much). Plus the intention of the 1987 legislation (as well as not applying to us) is anything but clear. Hence the need for the "clarification".

Then to saw we wilfully flouted the law.... We believed (as we still do) that the we engaged in perfectly legal avoidance measures. If we wanted to deliberately flout the law we would have evaded tax.

It's amazingly arrogant that they can pass this nonsense off as answers to clear and acceptable questions...

[TalkingCheese]

So frustrating

Just read the above document. The responses to the FOI requests are simply staggering.

As well as dodging every request, they maintain the following assertion:

"It [HMRC] strongly believes that [blah blah] none of the scheme users could have been in any doubt that they were deliberately flouting the clear intention of the 1987 legislation"

and that we "ought to have been aware of the likely consequences of their [our] wilful attempt to flout the law."

I strongly suspect that none if any scheme users had even heard of the 1987 legislation at the time. It's not really something you need to be familiar with to be an IT contractor or property developer. (C++, Java, SQL yes... obscure legislation not so much). Plus the intention of the 1987 legislation (as well as not applying to us) is anything but clear. Hence the need for the "clarification".

Then to saw we wilfully flouted the law.... We believed (as we still do) that the we engaged in perfectly legal avoidance measures. If we wanted to deliberately flout the law we would have evaded tax.

It's amazingly arrogant that they can pass this nonsense off as answers to clear and acceptable questions...

I dont want to be defeatest and have great hopes given the info recently but I feel a little like we are flogging a dead horse at the moment. It has a couple of breaths left and I believe it needs some mouth to mouth ! (Dodgy analogy to writing to MPS ) Why is no-one listening to this obvious wrong-doing ?

It seems like they (HMRC, Osborne, Gauke, Parker etc) have convinced themselves/been brainwashed of the above. When you look at the facts, let alone the subjective view that not being legal/tax folk we wouldnt have known this detail at the time, we had absolutely no clue from HMRC/IR to believe what we were doing was not going to be accepted until 2007. We certainly had no reason to suspect Padmore until march 2008 some 7 years later, which by the way, is when the scheme disbanded !

Pre 2007 the only info I had from HMRC/IR was that they were enquiring into my returns and furthermore they "want to make sure you pay the right tax, not too little or too much..." (Nov 2006). I have had enquiries when permy which were dropped once relevant info/explanations were supplied. HMRC/IR gave me no reason to believe the same wouldnt happen here.

I really want to get a reply through an MP or two on this obvious discrepancy. Hopefully it is coming...