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

[BrilloPad]

Simple answer...YES. Longer answer...with a vengeance. However, note that executors of a will are not permitted to make any distributions until such time as all tax claims have been resolved. You can imagine the pressure that this would put on the executors to pay up and distribute to the beneficiaries. Best to leave death out of it, unless it happens to be HMRC.

Also, do not expect any "With Sympathy" cards from them.

+1

My ex-wife is in HMRC. I would like to think they are terminators and emotionless. But they get positive enjoyment out of pain and suffering.

[BolshieBastard]

I listened to the transcript yesterday and obviously heard Fabian Hamilton speak, He is my MP and I have spoken to him about the situation on a number of occasions. I contacted him yesterday and here is the response I received and I quote:-

I was disappointed that we only got 5 minutesn to debate Nigel Mill's new clause 4 and its a shame there was not a division. What a shame that David Gauke trotted out the old Treasury line once again. We will try to raise the issue again on the floor of the House in Monday and Tuesday's debates at the Report Stage of the Bill.

Have to agree with him about the Division and the amendment being withdrawn. People are missing the point completely about a 'probing amendment' and what its intention is.

But, we still have the Report stage where another amendment could be tabled, debated and voted on.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Jacob Rees-Mogg

Does anyone live in any of the following postcodes?

BS31
BS39
BS40
BA1
BA2
BA3

Enter your postcode here WriteToThem

If your MP is Jacob Rees-Mogg please contact me urgently.

Thanks
DR

donkeyrhubarb AT rocketmail.com

[wertert]

Does anyone live in any of the following postcodes?

BS31
BS39
BS40
BA1
BA2
BA3

Enter your postcode here WriteToThem

If your MP is Jacob Rees-Mogg please contact me urgently.

Thanks
DR

donkeyrhubarb AT rocketmail.com

DR - Just PM'd you. I'm BA2.

[marcuss]

Disappointing reply from my Tory MP!

After a number of contacts with him since Mar12, Mr Bob Blackman replied saying 'tough!'

Interestingly, his acknowledgement letter back in Mar/Apr12 said he has asked George Os to look into this but then got this following reply today without any reference to GO...

"Thank you for contacting my office about this matter. I understand that you had some difficulties in getting in contact with me so please accept my apologies. I am sorry to hear that you and your business have suffered from the retrospective changes made by Section 58 of the Financial Act passed under the last Labour Government.

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 predictability, stability and simplicity. In particular the Protocol states that changes to tax legislation where the change takes effect retrospectively will be wholly exceptional.

The 2008 Finance Act ensures that the UK has always retained the right to tax its own residents. The Act was introduced in response to an artificial avoidance scheme used by more than 3000 taxpayers. This scheme looked to exploit a perceived loophole in legislation enacted in 1987 that was intended to put beyond doubt that the UK has always retained the right to tax its own residents.

In two judicial reviews, the courts have found that the retrospective element of the legislation is proportionate and compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. While I am sorry to hear you have been affected by Section 58, the Government accepts the Courts' verdicts that the changes were both a proportionate and legal response to the tax avoidance undertaken.

I understand that HMRC has sonsistently made it clear that it considered the scheme to be inefficient and has regularly recommended that payments on accounts be made. HMRC has established procedures to consider allowing 'Time to Pay' for those with short term difficulties as they fall due.

Thank you again for taking time to contact me.
"

Points to note :
This seems a standard reply (has anyone else got this or similar?)
The whole letter is typed except my name in Dear Mr xyz, which was handwritten!
Same blurb as "HMRC has consistently made it clear..."!!!!
Section 58 was by Labour Government but we accept the Courts' verdict!

DR et al, shall I send you the scanned letter for your reference and await guidance on the next step from you and Whitehouse?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

DR - Just PM'd you. I'm BA2.

Thanks, I've replied.

[helen7]

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 predictability, stability and simplicity. In particular the Protocol states that changes to tax legislation where the change takes effect retrospectively will be wholly exceptional.

1 point I really would like answered. Why was it just this tax avoidance scheme that has been targeted retrospectively?

Why not k2 (jimmy carr)?
Why not castlemaine - who have been going with dodgy loans for 10 years!!!?
Why not tax avoidance from 'artificially flipping homes'?

[marcuss]

1 point I really would like answered. Why was it just this tax avoidance scheme that has been targeted retrospectively?

Why not k2 (jimmy carr)?
Why not castlemaine - who have been going with dodgy loans for 10 years!!!?
Why not tax avoidance from 'artificially flipping homes'?

... and Why not MPs expense fiddles?

Look at Baroness Warsi going scott free with a 'minor offense' tag for her dodgy tax avoidance and she is the Tory Chair Person!!!
I'm sure we can add more to this list ....

[javadude]

I understand that HMRC has sonsistently made it clear that it considered the scheme to be inefficient and has regularly recommended that payments on accounts be made.

Interesting that this letter says "inefficient" and not "illegal".

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Points to note :
This seems a standard reply (has anyone else got this or similar?)
The whole letter is typed except my name in Dear Mr xyz, which was handwritten!
Same blurb as "HMRC has consistently made it clear..."!!!!
Section 58 was by Labour Government but we accept the Courts' verdict!

DR et al, shall I send you the scanned letter for your reference and await guidance on the next step from you and Whitehouse?

It is the same standard BS reply that most people have had.

Have you sent him this?
http://notoretrotax.org.uk/public-do...amendment.docx

It is not too late to send this because we are hoping the matter will be revisited during the reporting stage of the bill next week.