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

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Hi all, Is this the best address to write to when requesting copies of CNs under the DPA?

HM Revenue & Customs
Self Assessment
PO Box 4000
Cardiff
CF14 8HR

Many thanks, MMSguru

For obvious reasons, you should only write to HMRC if you have already received a CN for every year you were in the scheme.

It's probably best to write to your normal tax office.

I haven't bothered writing myself because I know they opened enquiries for all my CNs. However, if I was writing I would word it something like this:

Tax reference: xxxxxxx

xx May 2012

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing to request copies of enquiries you opened into my tax returns for the following tax years:

200x/y
200y/z

Yours faithfully,

It's best to actually list the tax years so there can be no ambiguity.

[Disgusted of Coventry]

Document B025

Sorry if this has been explained elsewhere, but I don't understand this at all. The defence (B025) specifically references Huitson, and yet the judgment is regarded as being generic.

Why?

In Sheldon's article (B001), he attributes the Judges' decisions to :
i) The targets of s58 knowingly playing a game of brinkmanship with tax legislation (a ridiculous idea).
ii) HMRC's continuous advisement that the scheme didn't work, and that money should be paid on account.

Even if (i) & (ii) were true in the case of the beleaguered Mr. Huitson, they are obviously untrue in the general case.

So how does the Huitson judgment carry any weight? Am I missing an element of the argument?

[portseven]

Is there any mileage in letting MEP's know about this?

[TAF4]

Just been Gauke'd

My MP has forwarded the 'Ministerial Response' letter from Gauke. I got an abbreviated version that used the piece about 'The courts have decided it was ok to shaft you so get over it!'

Interestingly the piece about consistently advising we pay on account wasn't included. Maybe it's an austerity measure to reduce BullTulip consumption.

The covering letter acknowledged the meeting with my wife (in which she blistered his ears) but rather promisingly asked 'Where would you/the group like to go next on this one?' .

The Group?? Where did that come from?

I shall now be pressing for a meeting in Westminster (as I work near there).

[BarneyCool]

Interested

Has there been much increase in traffic to No To Retrospective Taxation | Campaign Against Retrospective Tax Legislation after the recent Montpelier circular?

[TalkingCheese]

My MP has forwarded the 'Ministerial Response' letter from Gauke. I got an abbreviated version that used the piece about 'The courts have decided it was ok to shaft you so get over it!'

Interestingly the piece about consistently advising we pay on account wasn't included. Maybe it's an austerity measure to reduce BullTulip consumption.

The covering letter acknowledged the meeting with my wife (in which she blistered his ears) but rather promisingly asked 'Where would you/the group like to go next on this one?' .

The Group?? Where did that come from?

I shall now be pressing for a meeting in Westminster (as I work near there).

Did they include the bit about letting us know "throughout" that it was rejected ?

[TAF4]

Did they include the bit about letting us know "throughout" that it was rejected ?

Nope. Just the courts piece.

[travellingknob]

Sorry if this has been explained elsewhere, but I don't understand this at all. The defence (B025) specifically references Huitson, and yet the judgment is regarded as being generic.

Why?

In Sheldon's article (B001), he attributes the Judges' decisions to :
i) The targets of s58 knowingly playing a game of brinkmanship with tax legislation (a ridiculous idea).
ii) HMRC's continuous advisement that the scheme didn't work, and that money should be paid on account.

Even if (i) & (ii) were true in the case of the beleaguered Mr. Huitson, they are obviously untrue in the general case.

So how does the Huitson judgment carry any weight? Am I missing an element of the argument?

You would hope that MontP chose the right case to take forward that best represents their case. The judgement is not whether or not (i) & (ii) are true or not, its whether the reprospective nature broke his human rights. Certainly Mr Huitson was one of the earliest users of the scheme so the retrospective element was most relevant to him. The appeals process allows the arguments to be shot down during appeal if they were incorrect and it was up to Huitsons legal team to do that. It's not clear to me whether they adequately did that for (ii) or not but nonetheless as far as human rights are concerned we are beyond argueing that in the UK courts.

[TalkingCheese]

Wow

Nope. Just the courts piece.

Sounds like the truth is starting to work it's way through. Here's hoping...

[p4nd4b34r]

After 3 months of aggressive saving , Ive managed to scrape together approx 1 fiftieth of what I 'owe'. Looks like bankruptcy for me