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

[SantaClaus]

"Dear Mr X,

Thank you for contacting me about retrospective tax and Section 58 of the Finance Act 2008.

The Government set out its position on retrospection in the "Tackling Tax Avoidance" document, produced as part of the Budget 2011. The Government is clear that the deterrent effect of acting retrospectively needs to be balanced against the need for maintaining the UK tax system's reputation for predicatability, stability and simplicity. In particular the Protocol states that changes to the tax legislation where the change takes effect retrospectively will be wholly exceptional.

I am sorry to hear how the retrospective application of this law is threatening your livelihood. As I mentioned to you in my previous letter, I have already spoken to the Minister about Section 58(4) Finance Act 2008. I appreciate your very legitimate concerns on this matter and I think that you have raised some valuable points. As such, as requested, I have forwarded your correspondence to Dave Guake MP, Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, for further consideration. I will endevour to forward you the Minister's response in due course.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me"

Hmmmm - not sure if he's actually got the point and willing to support the amendment.

If it was me lucozade, I would go to his surgery, beat his door down and put the question directly to him, "will he or will he not support the amendment?".

[NonnyMouse]

Anyone watching Question Time about the Jimmy Carr tax avoidance issue?

[the great escape]

Dave vs. the world

Britain’s tax system is the real villain of the Jimmy Carr case - Telegraph

I'm really beginning to think the current exposure in the media of the Jimmy Carr/Take That situation is a positive thing. It raises awareness of the real situation and how broken this country really is...

(something sadly everyone on this forum is well aware of...)

Yes, this is it. While Jimbo saying he's sorry and will kick the K2 habit immediately is probably seen by some as supportive of the govt.'s anti-avoidance stance, a gold ol' cross examination of Britain's wealthiest and most influencial people e.g. like those in politics will show he pales in tax avoiding comparison. Moral Dave has now kicked in the back doors of his own sacred Number 10 so that Bad Boy Branners can take said ministers to one side and examine every taxable orifice.

There's no way they'll put up with that. "Dave, we've told you before. French wine is for drinking, not thinking". Our policy here surely is to align ourselves with the untouchables. If those in charge are not being hauled over the coals by HMRC, then neither should we. And the justification will come back to a matter of legality - not morality. Then we can put all this scarmoungering to bed.

[BS81]

Mr. Hood has asked me to thank you for your email and let you know that he has already raised the matter of the amendment with the Exchequer Secretary and he appreciates your interest in writing to him.

We will send you a copy of Mr Gauke's response as soon as we are able to do so.

Kind regards......

So no answer to my question of will Jim come out and support us? Especially as the flat response above alludes previous Gauke contact.

Jim is also my MP. He is chair of the committee so isn't allowed to comment on it. He does seem to be forwarding on my letters to Gauke though. I just got a letter today to that effect.

[OnYourBikeGB]

Yes, this is it. While Jimbo saying he's sorry and will kick the K2 habit immediately is probably seen by some as supportive of the govt.'s anti-avoidance stance, a gold ol' cross examination of Britain's wealthiest and most influencial people e.g. like those in politics will show he pales in tax avoiding comparison. Moral Dave has now kicked in the back doors of his own sacred Number 10 so that Bad Boy Branners can take said ministers to one side and examine every taxable orifice.

There's no way they'll put up with that. "Dave, we've told you before. French wine is for drinking, not thinking". Our policy here surely is to align ourselves with the untouchables. If those in charge are not being hauled over the coals by HMRC, then neither should we. And the justification will come back to a matter of legality - not morality. Then we can put all this scarmoungering to bed.

Let's not forget it's not just Jimmy Carr, Gary Barlow and probably countless others are involved. I think that there is a a definite silver lining to this. Cameron didn't seem so keen to talk about Barlow the way he did about Carr, and there has been very little public outcry, in fact the question that keeps getting hurled back at the ministers is that if it is legal, and you knew, why didn't you do something?

I wonder how they would react to a press campaign along the lines of:

David Gauke

Will you be applying retrospective legislation going back as many years as necessary as well as interest charges on the full incomes of wealthy individuals that your party has awarded honours to, or do you consider it only 'fair' that it be used to bankrupt non-Tory donating, law-abiding members of the public on moderate incomes?

Just a thought

I feel very sorry for Carr and Barlow, they are being made scapegoats for Government inaction. You know what is morally repugnant? Screwing small businesses over so badly that they even considered tax avoidance, sometimes out of necessity, and then labelling them as immoral and then hiding behind slogans. This time, quite a few people seem to be wise to it.

Do the right thing Gauke and end this nonsense, because something tells me your hand is no longer as strong as you thought it was.

[Disgusted of Coventry]

Anyone watching Question Time about the Jimmy Carr tax avoidance issue?

Yes.

Thanks to Ken Clark's explanation, I think I finally understand what the GAAR is all about. It sounds as if s58 is a fantastical attempt to retrospectively apply the GAAR before it's even become Law in the first place. Or something. Maybe.

[NonnyMouse]

Yes.

Thanks to Ken Clark's explanation, I think I finally understand what the GAAR is all about. It sounds as if s58 is a fantastical attempt to retrospectively apply the GAAR before it's even become Law in the first place. Or something. Maybe.

Good that's now clear :-)

[Disgusted of Coventry]

Good that's now clear :-)

Glad to be of help

[the great escape]

Let's not forget it's not just Jimmy Carr, Gary Barlow and probably countless others are involved. I think that there is a a definite silver lining to this. Cameron didn't seem so keen to talk about Barlow the way he did about Carr, and there has been very little public outcry, in fact the question that keeps getting hurled back at the ministers is that if it is legal, and you knew, why didn't you do something?

I wonder how they would react to a press campaign along the lines of:

David Gauke

Will you be applying retrospective legislation going back as many years as necessary as well as interest charges on the full incomes of wealthy individuals that your party has awarded honours to, or do you consider it only 'fair' that it be used to bankrupt non-Tory donating, law-abiding members of the public on moderate incomes?

Just a thought

I feel very sorry for Carr and Barlow, they are being made scapegoats for Government inaction. You know what is morally repugnant? Screwing small businesses over so badly that they even considered tax avoidance, sometimes out of necessity, and then labelling them as immoral and then hiding behind slogans. This time, quite a few people seem to be wise to it.

Do the right thing Gauke and end this nonsense, because something tells me your hand is no longer as strong as you thought it was.

Yes, lets have a go at everyone HMRC. Surely that stikes a 'fair balance' Mr Parker between the "...demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights"., the latter being not to be singled out and shafted whilst the remainder walk tax free. What a crock of -

[BrilloPad]

David Gauke has not responded to my facebook message to him. Maybe I should send him a reminder - with a picture of my kids.

Though turning up at one of his surgeries might be more efficient.