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

[travellingknob]

That's an interesting letter. They wafted away TE63 at the JR by saying that it was written by a junior officer. Your letter seems to imply that perhaps it was more important than they wanted the JR to know if they are going as far as to say that it has been superceded.

well they may also say my letter was written by a junior officer but nonetheless thats what it says.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Tax Trumps

Payment on Account

Be careful what you are telling your MP.

Some people may only have been advised by HMRC to make a PoA in 2007 but that is not true for everyone, especially those who joined in the early years.

For example, HMRC's testimony to the High Court reveals that Huitson was advised to make a PoA for 2001/2 in June 2004.

Forget PoA - it's a red herring.

The key points of rebuttal to the Gauke letter are outlined in H006.

Quite true DR and I doubt anyone would choose the word CONSISTENT to apply to how HMRC 'informed' people over a 5 or 6 year period. But I can trump you:

Simon Davis (Assistant Director, Business International, Litigation Team of HMRC), which I think does trump your HMRC 'Project Manager' stated in evidence for the JR that:

"I can confirm that the first time HMRC conveyed its view to Montpelier, or its scheme users, that the 1987 legislation actually applied to these schemes was in February 2008. It was explained that:

'Although there is no definition of "member of a firm" [in the 1987 legislation], it is at the very least implicit that it includes persons who are entitled to a share (especially a significant share) of the partnerships profits. You as beneficiary under the trust are entitled to a share (indeed, a significant share) of the partnership profits. You are therefore a "member of a firm" and, as a UK resident, thereby liable to tax on your share of the partnership profits.'

I'll leave the next paragraph out that starts with:

'Even if that were not the case....' as that would make me wince if I worked for HMRC on this case!

So even this fella admits that the basis for the scheme not working and the legislative reason only happened in 2008! Sweet Baby Jesus! I could care less if HMRC suggested someone paid on account. If you owe it because the law says so then tell me the law that makes it so and then transaction occurs. BUT, there was no CONSISTENCY from HMRC, senior HMRC officials confirm that 2008 was the first time they informed us that 1987 applies - even though it did not and never had until s.58 (not even ITTOIA 2005 for the benefit of HMRC if they are watching).

So, sorry, but my card trumps others. Whatever HMRC claimed they said to whom and when and how often - and I think I'm sure that "consistent" is the last word I'd use to describe whatever they claimed to have done, HMRC also confirm that 2008 was the first time they stated the law that is now (and not before) s.58 applies - Heaven Above! WW2 took less time to conclude than HMRC figuring out that Padmore applied to us - when it didn't.

We may have to update the NTRT timeline graphic to show some 2000+ timelines of what HMRC 'consistently' told everyone.

[bananarepublic]

It is important to stress what The Donkey said earlier:

There is a difference between

• The suggestion “to make a Payment on Account”

and

• The statement “that the scheme did not work”

No one would make a payment on account unless they expected that they would have further tax to pay. This turned on whether the scheme worked.

HMRC did not tell anyone that they believed the scheme did not work until 16th May 2007. Even where HMRC wrote to scheme users prior to that date the never gave a clear statement as to whether the scheme achieved its purpose.

Document B015, Page 12, Paragraph 32 explains this from the horse’s mouth

Prior to 16th May 2007 HMRC were firmly on the fence in their letters – probably because they had document I007 that made it very clear that the scheme worked.

The first time HMRC told me that in their opinion the scheme didn't work was in a letter dated 14 February 2006 where they mentioned the Archer Shee v Baker precedent (Section 739 I think).

They first told me in a letter dated 16 June 2004 that they are "aware of the payment structure and in particular the use of your trust as vehicle for receiving income". Further to this, without mentioning specifics they state they are "likely" to challenge.

There is an inexplicable delay between the two letters that somewhat contradicts their claim that they "always" maintained the scheme didn't work.

As the police say - "... it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something you later rely on in court ...". The reference to Archer Shee is irrelevant to the argument because they didn't base the retrospection on it.

The PoA argument HMRC use to partly justify the retrospection is load of carp. Basically it is extortion.

As has been mentioned every case is different.

The idea of a "guerrilla" war as regards tax tribunals is rather appealing if it is true that we can all have our individual tribunals. How expensive would 3000+ tribunals be for HMRC, although we would probably have to represent ourselves in most cases? In my view we should try and force a settlement along the Suo Motu lines as the best possible outcome we can hope for and this is a card we have.

[OldITGit]

BR I do not agree

The first time HMRC told me that in their opinion the scheme didn't work was in a letter dated 14 February 2006 where they mentioned the Archer Shee v Baker precedent (Section 739 I think).

They first told me in a letter dated 16 June 2004 that they are "aware of the payment structure and in particular the use of your trust as vehicle for receiving income". Further to this, without mentioning specifics they state they are "likely" to challenge.

There is an inexplicable delay between the two letters that somewhat contradicts their claim that they "always" maintained the scheme didn't work.

As the police say - "... it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something you later rely on in court ...". The reference to Archer Shee is irrelevant to the argument because they didn't base the retrospection on it.

The PoA argument HMRC use to partly justify the retrospection is load of carp. Basically it is extortion.

As has been mentioned every case is different.

The idea of a "guerrilla" war as regards tax tribunals is rather appealing if it is true that we can all have our individual tribunals. How expensive would 3000+ tribunals be for HMRC, although we would probably have to represent ourselves in most cases? In my view we should try and force a settlement along the Suo Motu lines as the best possible outcome we can hope for and this is a card we have.

Any talk of a settlement implies that you admit that the tax planning scheme was not legal at its inception and based on the facts and documentation available in NTRT that is obviously not the case

[Ninja]

Any talk of a settlement implies that you admit that the tax planning scheme was not legal at its inception and based on the facts and documentation available in NTRT that is obviously not the case

I agree with you.
Tax planning is legal

[moira under the stairs]

Agree.

If people on this forum believe (like me) that what has happened is a serious miscarriage of justice, then the only answer is for it to be righted. Not some half baked deal with HMRC that may or may not happen.

Totally with you there...

[smalldog]

Totally with you there...

+1

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Amber Valley in Derbyshire anyone?

Does anyone live in Amber Valley in Derbyshire, and have Nigel Mills as their MP?

[Fireship]

Any talk of a settlement implies that you admit that the tax planning scheme was not legal at its inception and based on the facts and documentation available in NTRT that is obviously not the case

Agreed, plus let's not forget that settlement still means bankruptcy for a large number of innocent families - not an option in my opinion!

[TalkingCheese]

Twitter Feeds

Can someone just confirm the validity of the couple of latest tweets ? After the last one just a bit sceptical