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

[TalkingCheese]

Just sent an email to my MP (again) but rather than getting the usual auto response I got nothing. I wonder if we are now on some MP's block list?

Yeah, I assumed that the first one was the only one that gets the auto response. Ever since then I don't receive anything when I send a mail, but I know they (the assistant at least) reads at least some of them as I have followed up with a call to check.

[moira under the stairs]

Just sent an email to my MP (again) but rather than getting the usual auto response I got nothing. I wonder if we are now on some MP's block list?

Then its back to Royal 'snail' Mail ...... even recorded delivery that will really pi$$ them off, ensure you keep a journal of the dates sent.

[TAF4]

Then its back to Royal 'snail' Mail ......

I am writing (often) to my MP using snail mail and then sending all the doco's as pdf's attached to a covering email. In that way he can't ignore either. My last two responses from this MP have been attempts to shut me down, one of which was under direct instruction from Gauke. No chance.


Over time, this increasing pile of documentation, and requests for meetings, is going to come back to bite his 'A'. The longer it goes on the more embarrassing it will become for him, that he refused to support a constituent with a legitimate concern about how Parliamentary processes have been manipulated by HMRC.

I can't wait.

[normalbloke]

We shall see...

Great work did you get a one to one? if so at least he will be getting our side of the story without the spin.

Unlikely to get a one to one with the man himself initially but should get a face to face with one of his office team. This is the precursor to a real meeting, so Whitehouse and myself are preparing for that.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Tax Tales

I today received via my MP a response from HMRC to my original letter back in March. It was from Judith Knott, CBE, Director of Anti-tax-avoidance. It is more or less the same as the standard Gauke letter (the courts have decided, we always said it would not work......). The penultinate paragraph responds to my citing the Tax Avoidance Protocol. She refers to the section 'where the change takes effect earlier than the date of announcement, it will be wholly exceptional.' She then goes on to say this is a Ministerial Protocol, because the decision to introduce retrospective legislation is a decision for ministers, not HMRC.

Errr I think someone in HMRC is being economical with the truth (again). So Ms Knott if you're reading please go speak with Simon Davis (used to be based at 100 Parliament St, drop me a line if you can't find him, I can). In his witness testimony to the Courts for the JR he clearly states on page 7 paras 19 & 20 that HMRC did advise Ministers to act retrospectively. Based on what you're suggesting, giving Ministers the gun means nothing because you didn't pull the trigger! Ministers didn't come up with retrospective legislation - YOU DID! Both you and Mor Davis cannot both be correct so have a chat with each other and decide who carries the can for retrospection in this case, HMRC or Ministers. Kennedy stated she received advice from you (HMRC). Sure, she could have rejected it but I understand that she was surrounded by the 'creme de la creme' from HMRC. Seems kicking the tin down the road to the Treasury won't wash on this I'm afraid.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

HMRC's view

If you recall, HMRC apparently always maintained the scheme didn't work. That's what the JR was told. You know something? That's a bit odd for HMRC to claim.

In his witness statement to the Courts for the JR, Mr. Macdougall (hi there!) stated on page 8 para 18 "However, there were also delays by SI. In particular, although Montpelier were told SI were seeking advice in early 2005, it was not until February 2006 that SI wrote setting out their case that the scheme did not work" (Undeline, my emphasis).

So how does that fit with HMRC always stated they never accepted the scheme worked or consistently maintained the scheme did not work? Clearly it does not. I suspect that is why all of you good folk have no rambling letters from HMRC saying any of this prior to 2006. Indeed I'm quite sure that they stated the exact opposite in February 2006.

What it does mean is that opening an enquiry must equal 'did not accept the scheme worked'. Odd though that para 17 of his testimony states "It is HMRC policy to obtain all the relevant information and documents before entering into any arguments about the efficacy of an avoidance scheme".

Take that with para 18 above and HMRC are stating clearly that their own policy prevented them from making any argument about the scheme and then they delayed further by a year making that argument. Sorry, but "never accepted the scheme worked" is pure fiction. And I thought retrospection was always used with great care and attention.

[TalkingCheese]

I know you know this but worth stating in this context...

If you recall, HMRC apparently always maintained the scheme didn't work. That's what the JR was told. You know something? That's a bit odd for HMRC to claim.... it was not until February 2006 that SI wrote setting out their case that the scheme did not work" (Undeline, my emphasis)... Indeed I'm quite sure that they stated the exact opposite in February 2006.
...

I guess this was for Huitson but I have a letter dated November 2006 where they intend "enquiring into this return...We want to make sure you pay the right tax, not too little or too much..." No rejection here.

It was not until May 2007 that I received a letter stating "...HMRC does not accept that the claims are valid..." and even then there was no reason given.

In any case both dates confirm the statement that they "always maintained the scheme did not work" is a lie (or perhaps not a lie, they just didn't tell anybody!). It also goes to show how we cannot all be lumped into the same case.

[Emigre]

Closure Notices

I just found this FOIA Request.

Closure Notices issued prior to S58 FA2008 - a Freedom of Information request to HM Revenue and Customs - WhatDoTheyKnow

HMRC stated that they issued the following numbers of CNs in the years pre-dating S58:

The approximate figures are as follows
2003 1
2004 3
2005 0
2006 309
2007 22
(Note: Closure notices are issued as a sign that an enquiry into a tax return has ended. Therefore, it is possible for an individual to receive more that one closure notice as they are issued per tax return enquiry not per individual. Also there will be some enquires that are settled by
the agreement; in these cases a closure notice is not always issued.)

Did anyone on this forum receive a CN in any of the above years? If so, perhaps you could PM me some details. Did you settle? Still open? What did the letter say? Alternatively, please forward details to info at NoToRetroTax.or.uk.

Thank you

Emigre

[DonkeyRhubarb]

In his witness statement to the Courts for the JR, Mr. Macdougall (hi there!) stated...

I wouldn't believe everything he says.

[Buzby]

Enquiries closed in 2006

I just found this FOIA Request.

Closure Notices issued prior to S58 FA2008 - a Freedom of Information request to HM Revenue and Customs - WhatDoTheyKnow

HMRC stated that they issued the following numbers of CNs in the years pre-dating S58:

[COLOR="blue"]The approximate figures are as follows
2003 1
2004 3
2005 0
2006 309
2007 22
...

I wonder what we can read into the 2006 309 enquires being closed? is this when we think HMRC also come up with the retrospective part of S58? Does this mean a large number of people settled with HMRC (luckily them), or HMRC decided to no longer pursue these years for double tax claims?