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

[Emigre]

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?

We know that the retro aspect of S58 was only thought about in November 2007 so these pre-date that. We don't know what happened to all these CNs or even what they said - they could have been an acceptance of the original SAR with no amendment made. This is why we need anyone who received one of these to offer us some help.

There is no doubt that it casts serious doubt on the veracity of one or two witness statements in the JR.

[Disgusted of Coventry]

Here we go again!

My friend has just been roundly Gauked.

The contents of this letter are well documented on this thread, but it's still rather shocking to see it in the flesh. You've got to wonder what passes through Gauke's mind whenever he's called upon to sign one of these things.

The MP's covering letter is carefully bland, so this might be yet another balletic about-face.

We'll see...

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Taking stock

It is just 7 weeks since we launched NTRT and members who received the monthly newsletters will I trust be pleased with the excellent progress we/Whitehouse have made in such a short space of time.

Hopefully more people will now be encouraged to sign up and join us.

Join Now | No To Retrospective Taxation

Thanks!
DR

[p4nd4b34r]

It is just 7 weeks since we launched NTRT and members who received the monthly newsletters will I trust be pleased with the excellent progress we/Whitehouse have made in such a short space of time.

Hopefully more people will now be encouraged to sign up and join us.

Join Now | No To Retrospective Taxation

Thanks!
DR

DR I have had a response from my MP Andrew Stunell which apears to be fairly considered, supportive and at least in his own words.. I'll quote him

after referring to the Gauke letter he goes on

' .. whilst I havent seen the wording of the judgement (JR and appeal), if it does indeed say that the measures taken have been proportionate then it would be very difficult to construct and argument to the contrary. It seems very likely that the Treasury would be able to construct an argument that said whilst we may have relied on different arguments at different times the fact is we always asserted that this arrangement was defective. I'm not at al clear how such an argument could be circumvented...

.. That doesnt stop me advocating on your behalf as your constituency MP, a change of heart by the government, and I would be ready to do so if I could see a suitable lever. ... If it is the case that you and others affected have devised an effective way of taking things a step further please let me know so I can consider how it may be practical for me to assist - Andrew Stunell MP'

Maybe this could be useful to Whitehouse, as he seems fairly on board with the injustice of it,

[Shropshire Lad]

Joined!!!

It is just 7 weeks since we launched NTRT and members who received the monthly newsletters will I trust be pleased with the excellent progress we/Whitehouse have made in such a short space of time.

Hopefully more people will now be encouraged to sign up and join us.

Join Now | No To Retrospective Taxation

Thanks!
DR

I've been meaning to join since the beginning but haven't had the cash. Given all the great work I can't leave it any longer so have moved some money around and joined. This is a serious injustice where the 'little people' could have been trodden all over. Everyone involved should be enormously proud of trying to bring some integrity to this whole sorry mess.

[ContractIn]

It is just 7 weeks since we launched NTRT and members who received the monthly newsletters will I trust be pleased with the excellent progress we/Whitehouse have made in such a short space of time.

Hopefully more people will now be encouraged to sign up and join us.

Join Now | No To Retrospective Taxation

Thanks!
DR

I certainly am. Anyone impacted by this (even those who have small liabilities) should sign up and support this campaign.

Thanks to all those who are actively working on the campaign

[Corrian]

I certainly am. Anyone impacted by this (even those who have small liabilities) should sign up and support this campaign.

Thanks to all those who are actively working on the campaign

Ditto !!!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Judith Knott letter

Can anyone who has this letter forward a copy to info AT notoretrotax.org.uk

Thanks
DR

[the great escape]

DR I have had a response from my MP Andrew Stunell which apears to be fairly considered, supportive and at least in his own words.. I'll quote him

after referring to the Gauke letter he goes on

' .. whilst I havent seen the wording of the judgement (JR and appeal), if it does indeed say that the measures taken have been proportionate then it would be very difficult to construct and argument to the contrary. It seems very likely that the Treasury would be able to construct an argument that said whilst we may have relied on different arguments at different times the fact is we always asserted that this arrangement was defective. I'm not at al clear how such an argument could be circumvented...

.. That doesnt stop me advocating on your behalf as your constituency MP, a change of heart by the government, and I would be ready to do so if I could see a suitable lever. ... If it is the case that you and others affected have devised an effective way of taking things a step further please let me know so I can consider how it may be practical for me to assist - Andrew Stunell MP'

Maybe this could be useful to Whitehouse, as he seems fairly on board with the injustice of it,

For me P4, the first extract from your letter strikes at the heart of the matter.

HMRC argued the arrangements didn't work (in their opinion) using std anti-avoidance legislation but weren't prepared to test that in the Tax Courts. Sensing a loss, they then changed tact and got carte blanche from the Justices to apply a retrospective interpretation of Padmore. And so these 'different arguments at different times ' have been blended together so Parliament could assert that the arrangement was always 'defective'. However this discontinuity in HMRCs approach surely clarifies that at one point, the scheme did work.

HMRC should have gone for their guns early - circa 2001, lost it in the tax courts then used that outcome to legislate in the next Finance Act. We could have been all done and dusted by 2002/2003. HMRC - you've made a meal of it.

[Disgusted of Coventry]

HMRC should have gone for their guns early - circa 2001, lost it in the tax courts then used that outcome to legislate in the next Finance Act. We could have been all done and dusted by 2002/2003. HMRC - you've made a meal of it.

This was probably because HMRC was forced to devote the lion's share of its intellectual resources into chasing IR35 up hill and down dale.

Come to think of it, if we're going to discuss "schemes that didn't work"...