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

[greybob]

In terms of HMRC always maintaining that the scheme didn't work, here are 2 pieces of evidence which contradict this.

1) Jane Kennedy's statements to Parliament. Search for the word "flouts".
http://notoretrotax.org.uk/public-do...lause%2055.doc

2) HMRC's evidence to the High court. See page 7, point 20.
Join Now | No To Retrospective Taxation

Thanks DR and TC - will send him my response today, will keep you posted.

[Emigre]

This is the letter sent to India's Prime Minister signed by the CBI et al.

http://www.cbi.org.uk/media/1442329/...r_to_india.pdf

It claims that "[India's] unfettered retroactivity also departs significantly from the practice followed in other countries, which prohibit or carefully limit the use of retroactive tax legislation."

Really? Would anyone characterize s58 as carefully applied?

I can't help feeling that if the CBI are prepared to confer their signature to this rubbish, then they should be invited to try and reconcile it with s58.

One of the team has engaged with the CBI. At present they appear not to understand it... A meeting has been requested.

[taxedermy]

Thanks Guys - brilliant effort. I have joined the campaign and sent letter off to Justine Greening - anyone else have her as MP - have they got a reply yet??

Will drum up a few other MTM users as well.

yup I have JG as my MP.. I wrote to her and got the standard reply that she would look into it.

I havnt arranged a meeting yet.

[SLB]

I think because there was no need for it. I suspect it was being used for asset protection, but not by IT contractors or nurses. It was the uncertainty of IR35 the caused the shift. At the time it was impossible to tell what IR35 meant. It is economically sensible to adopt a model that gives certainty in these circumstances (ironic now). There wasn't a huge saving when the economics of the scheme versus LtdCo were considered in the early 2000's. That did depend on the amount put through however.

I don't think a list of schemes was published - but the law is published and the implications of the law. The HMIR tax handbook gave the outline of how the scheme would work - the detail then had to be worked out. As we now know, lots of companies worked out those details very quickly.

HMRC knew that had happened because they published it on their website. Oh yeah, and they opened enquiries into individuals self-assessment returns too. That is something of a give away.

The big question is why did HMIR/HMRC do nothing about it? They could have passed s.58 in 2001 if they had wanted - there is nothing magical about it. Was it because a certain Tony Blair had argued against retrospection in the Padmore case and HMRC had a score to settle with one of the scheme promotors?

If that is the case, is that how a country's tax administration should operate?

I for one would like an answer - and in the fullness of time an investigation will establish the truth.

Everyone who is under investigation should have a look at HMRCs charter - it's on the back of the COP8 booklet that was sent to you when the investigation was opened. Just for fun, why not count how many HMRC have broken.

Thanks - very helpful and informative!
SLB

[CanPayButWouldRatherNot]

the timeline

the excellent timeline diagram doesnt include the sumoto deal.

Latest News | No To Retrospective Taxation

Couple of mates were in the suomoto scheme and should we not include the date of when a similar scheme was dealt with by HMRC bods ?

[TalkingCheese]

the excellent timeline diagram doesnt include the sumoto deal.

Latest News | No To Retrospective Taxation

Couple of mates were in the suomoto scheme and should we not include the date of when a similar scheme was dealt with by HMRC bods ?

The main purpose of that timeline is to show how HMRC never rejected the scheme until 2007, 6 years after it started, and we had no way of knowing about Padmore 1987 as a reason until 2008. Its mainly to combat the standard letter that is coming back from Osborne/Gauke.

Makes it nice and easy for MPs who dont know details (like when the scheme started etc) to see that HMRC did not reject and recommend payments "throughout"... they did it once, less than a year before the scheme ended.

If we added all the detail they wouldnt see the wood for the trees. Maybe another graphical timeline ?

[dr_heathcliff]

I'm in too

Another long time lurker showing support for campaign. In process of writing to MP as we speak (Adam Afriyie) not sure if anyone else has already.

[Dieselpower]

Justine greening

yup I have JG as my MP.. I wrote to her and got the standard reply that she would look into it.

I havnt arranged a meeting yet.

Taxidermy - did you bring document K010 to her attention, to remind her of her stance when she was in opposition?

[nevergiveup]

What if?

I've pointed my MP at the notoretro website and was wondering what we should do if they ask to see some Member's only documents? Should we download the requested document(s) and email or do we tell them to join?

[TalkingCheese]

I've pointed my MP at the notoretro website and was wondering what we should do if they ask to see some Member's only documents? Should we download the requested document(s) and email or do we tell them to join?

If they ask for them, my vote would be download and email.