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

[PlaneSailing]

response from my MP below:-

Dear Mr xxxx,

Thank you for contacting me about retrospective tax and Section 58 of the Finance Act 2008.

I am sorry to hear that you have suffered from the retrospective changes made by Section 58 of the Finance Act passed under the last Labour Government.

The Government set out its position on retrospection in the “Tackling Tax Avoidance” document, produced as part of the Budget 2011. The Government is clear that the deterrent effect of acting retrospectively needs to be balanced against the need for maintaining the UK tax system’s reputation for predictability, stability and simplicity. In particular the Protocol states that changes to tax legislation where the change takes effect retrospectively will be wholly exceptional.

The 2008 Finance Act ensures that the UK has always retained the right to tax its own residents. The Act was introduced in response to an artificial avoidance scheme used by more than 3,000 taxpayers. This scheme looked to exploit a perceived loophole in legislation enacted in 1987 that was intended to put beyond doubt that the UK has always retained the right to tax its own residents.

In two judicial reviews, the Courts have found that the retrospective element of the legislation is proportionate and compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. While I am sorry to hear you have been affected by Section 58, the Government accepts the Courts’ verdicts that the changes were both a proportionate and legal response to the tax avoidance undertaken.

I understand that HMRC has consistently made it clear that it considered that the scheme did not work and has regularly recommended that payments on account be made. HMRC has established procedures to consider allowing Time to Pay for those with short term difficulties meeting liabilities as they fall due.

Thank you again or taking the time to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

Above is after several emails with me chasing... :-(

The 2011 protocol also says that HMRC will act quickly. Not sure if 7 years counts as quickly.

[slogger]

The 2011 protocol also says that HMRC will act quickly. Not sure if 7 years counts as quickly.

I'm getting a feeling that this is being centrally managed within parliament - everyone seems to be getting pretty much standard responses..

[TalkingCheese]

I'm getting a feeling that this is being centrally managed within parliament - everyone seems to be getting pretty much standard responses..

Yes, although it does seem that your MP has done some homework and does not support our cause, taking time to paraphrase the standard response :-(. Of course, he hasn't done enough homework or he would see the injustice.

[slogger]

Yes, although it does seem that your MP has done some homework and does not support our cause, taking time to paraphrase the standard response :-(. Of course, he hasn't done enough homework or he would see the injustice.

indeed - but they all seem to be stating that hmrc told us this didnt work etc - assume they're all being fed the same misinformation

[nevergiveup]

indeed - but they all seem to be stating that hmrc told us this didnt work etc - assume they're all being fed the same misinformation

It's bloody madness. If for example after being in the scheme for 1 year HMRC came back to me/Montpelier saying the scheme didn't work because of x and you owe us £x, then I would of payed up and moved on. They didn't. End of.

[TalkingCheese]

Anyone getting chased for 2008 ?

Apparently, in some cases, 2008 is being "worked on" but the payments are not suspended (even though the appeal was acknowledged by HMRC), so they are sending letters to collect. MontP are sorting, however, as usual, forward anything you get...

[Buzby]

next step

indeed - but they all seem to be stating that hmrc told us this didnt work etc - assume they're all being fed the same misinformation

shouldn't we now go to the ombudsman to get the facts about what HMRC told JK in 2008? from her email it looks like she had been misled and then wouldn't it make it easier for MP's to understand the injustice of section 58?

[mrkitchen]

response from my MP below:-

Dear Mr xxxx,

Thank you for contacting me about retrospective tax and Section 58 of the Finance Act 2008.

I am sorry to hear that you have suffered from the retrospective changes made by Section 58 of the Finance Act passed under the last Labour Government.

The Government set out its position on retrospection in the “Tackling Tax Avoidance” document, produced as part of the Budget 2011. The Government is clear that the deterrent effect of acting retrospectively needs to be balanced against the need for maintaining the UK tax system’s reputation for predictability, stability and simplicity. In particular the Protocol states that changes to tax legislation where the change takes effect retrospectively will be wholly exceptional.

The 2008 Finance Act ensures that the UK has always retained the right to tax its own residents. The Act was introduced in response to an artificial avoidance scheme used by more than 3,000 taxpayers. This scheme looked to exploit a perceived loophole in legislation enacted in 1987 that was intended to put beyond doubt that the UK has always retained the right to tax its own residents.

In two judicial reviews, the Courts have found that the retrospective element of the legislation is proportionate and compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. While I am sorry to hear you have been affected by Section 58, the Government accepts the Courts’ verdicts that the changes were both a proportionate and legal response to the tax avoidance undertaken.

I understand that HMRC has consistently made it clear that it considered that the scheme did not work and has regularly recommended that payments on account be made. HMRC has established procedures to consider allowing Time to Pay for those with short term difficulties meeting liabilities as they fall due.

Thank you again or taking the time to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

Above is after several emails with me chasing... :-(

Virtually the same response from my Conservative MP.

[moira under the stairs]

The Monday morning blues....

shouldn't we now go to the ombudsman to get the facts about what HMRC told JK in 2008? from her email it looks like she had been misled and then wouldn't it make it easier for MP's to understand the injustice of section 58?

HMRC, civil servants & some Ministers are in this to deeply to let this one go... do you think it was ever going to be easy, we are dragging a large rock up a very steep Mountain, .... will we get any justice ? I have my doubts with the corruption & system we are fighting against.

Life isn't Fair we all know that... if it was we would already have had our day in the TAX court.

We can sit back and take it in the rear or carry on the fight, or leave it to others to fight and leach off the results..... I know what I want to do and have put my money where my mouth is.....

[seadog]

Meeting with my MP

Just a quick note to register that I have arranged a meeting with my MP David Mowat South Warrington for 11th May

To short circuit the usual response from Gauke I will to give to him the rebuttal to the standard Gauke response to feed back to Gauke.

I will be putting our case and asking him specifically not just to write to Gauke but to get him to confirm he will support the amendment to S58(4) when it comes up in the Finance Bill.