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

[Toocan]

Can you believe this? It's the definition of duplicity. Paragraph 7 of B025 reads...

"7. Before any cases were listed, however, the Government announced in the Budget of 12th March 2008 proposals to introduce legislation retrospectively to put beyong doubt the question of the validity of claims such as those made by the claimant."

Whereas it ought to read like this...

"7. HMRC reneged on its agreement, however, and instead deceived the Government into announcing in the Budget of 12th March 2008 proposals to introduce legislation retrospectively to negate the validity of claims such as those made by the claimant."

Unbelievable!

Have you noticed that HMRC admits quite a lot in the JR documents that they kept hidden from Parliament during the debate on section 58/BN66?

[Donnie Darko]

I have joined the website and I have no objection as such to writing to my MP, but isn't the whole point of hiring a lobbying firm that they do the lobbying?

Isn't this a bit like getting a dog and barking yourself?

[Toocan]

I have joined the website and I have no objection as such to writing to my MP, but isn't the whole point of hiring a lobbying firm that they do the lobbying?

Isn't this a bit like getting a dog and barking yourself?

Unless MPs understand the effect that s.58 will have on thousands of individuals, they may think that the misleading of Parliament only affected a few people who could afford it. That's not true. Many (not a couple or a few) thousands of people (families actually) have been affected and they are not the wealthy who can afford it.

The lobbying company is not enough. MPs may not believe what a lobbying company tells them. But when individuals get in touch, front up in front of them, then they believe it. Then they understand that HMRC have done something awful and that it cannot be allowed to stand.

Meet or at least write to your MP.

[portseven]

Are we fighting alone?

Seems that the Legal side of things has gone quiet from MP, etc. Or are they keeping quiet for strategic reasons?

[travellingknob]

Maybe we should put up our own candidates in those constituencies where an MP can just about string a sentence together.

Now thats an idea. A new political party just formed fighting all 642 seats. I forget how much the deposit is but its relatively small. Arent national parties guaranteed equal media exposure as well ? Would love to stick one to HMRC. lol

[moira under the stairs]

Now thats an idea. A new political party just formed fighting all 642 seats. I forget how much the deposit is but its relatively small. Arent national parties guaranteed equal media exposure as well ? Would love to stick one to HMRC. lol

In order to encourage only serious candidates to stand, a £500 deposit is required when submitting the nomination papers - returned if the candidate receives over five per cent of the total votes cast.

[BrilloPad]

Are we fighting alone?

Seems that the Legal side of things has gone quiet from MP, etc. Or are they keeping quiet for strategic reasons?

ECHR is progressing. Domestically ball is with HMRC now.

[GBHuhd]

Closure Notice Received

Hi All,

Just received my first closure notice, i'm sure this has been mentioned a few times already but any idea what i do with this, do i simply pass onto Montpelier to deal with.

Also, i note they mention if its not paid up within 28 days then i will get hit with a 5% surcharge, does anyone know if montpelier manage to get this held up would the taxman then come back and hit with me with that later on ?

Many Thanks.

[Buzby]

Hi All,

Just received my first closure notice, i'm sure this has been mentioned a few times already but any idea what i do with this, do i simply pass onto Montpelier to deal with.

Also, i note they mention if its not paid up within 28 days then i will get hit with a 5% surcharge, does anyone know if montpelier manage to get this held up would the taxman then come back and hit with me with that later on ?

Many Thanks.

send it to MontP and they should get it suspended. I do not think you will then be charged the 5% surcharge.

[GBHuhd]

send it to MontP and they should get it suspended. I do not think you will then be charged the 5% surcharge.

Thanks very much - i have done so and they have said they will appeal it for me. Not having had the good fortune to receive one of these before, i have a few queries, wonder if anybody has an idea on this stuff:-

1)Seems to me that they have calculated the interest on the whole taxable amount, then deducted the payment already made afterwards. This must be incorrect, as surely the interest should only be charged on the unpaid amount (ie the new balance, minus the original payment). Or have i got that wrong ?
2) I took out a CTD for a small amount a few years ago, does anyone know if they would have adjusted the interest based on this or i have to force them to do that ?
3) When i did the original return, i didn't make all the claims i could regarding my rental income allowable expenses (ie 10% wear and tear/maintenance charges) as i wasn't too bothered then...but now i can see that is eating into that years personal allowance amount and if i had done it would further reduce my bill. Would i be allowed to have this adjusted do you think, or only they are allowed to make backdated changes ?