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

[Disgusted of Coventry]

Did everyone catch this?


Written Answers - Treasury: Finance Act 2008 (28 Jun 2012)
Finance Act 2008: 28 Jun 2012: Hansard Written Answers and Statements - TheyWorkForYou
Mike Freer: ...Revenue and Customs estimates will be raised in 2012-13 due to the provision of section 58 of the Finance Act 2008; (2) what effect he estimates the bankruptcy of individuals required to pay tax
*retrospectively* under section 58 of the Finance Act 2008 will have on HM Revenue and Customs revenues.

The webpage allows us to vote on whether Gauke's response answers Mike Freer's question.

That'll be a "No", then.

[Ninja]

The webpage allows us to vote on whether Gauke's response answers Mike Freer's question.

That'll be a "No", then.

I could only vote 'No', as the option 'No, you condescending b*stard' wasn't available.

[Disgusted of Coventry]

And another thing...

Finance Act 2008: 28 Jun 2012: Hansard Written Answers and Statements - TheyWorkForYou

Who the **ck dreamed up the phrase "put beyond doubt", to justify a retrospective change in the Law?

Whoever they are, they should IMMEDIATELY be vapourised into their constituent molecules.

[Rhydd]

40 years backlog

There's a backlog of 40 years worth of cases in the tax courts.

If you go to the BBC Parliament channel "watch now" page at:

BBC Parliament - Select Committees, Tax Disputes Committee

you can watch recorded coverage of the Public Accounts Committee's session on tax disputes on 29th June with the Permanent Secretary for Tax at HMRC Dave Hartnett and HMRC Chief Executive Lin Homer and Director General Business Tax Jim Harra.

It gives a view of the people at the top of HMRC being quizzed by MP's on an area similar to BN66 and their approch to taxpayers.

At one point HMRC are asked to comment on the media headline about the 40 year backlog and say that they don't recognize that figure at all. They make the point that there can be lead cases which, once resolved allow many others to be resolved also. They wern't asked what they estimate the actual backlog to be.

[BolshieBastard]

If you go to the BBC Parliament channel "watch now" page at:

BBC Parliament - Select Committees, Tax Disputes Committee

you can watch recorded coverage of the Public Accounts Committee's session on tax disputes on 29th June with the Permanent Secretary for Tax at HMRC Dave Hartnett and HMRC Chief Executive Lin Homer and Director General Business Tax Jim Harra.

It gives a view of the people at the top of HMRC being quizzed by MP's on an area similar to BN66 and their approch to taxpayers.

At one point HMRC are asked to comment on the media headline about the 40 year backlog and say that they don't recognize that figure at all. They make the point that there can be lead cases which, once resolved allow many others to be resolved also. They wern't asked what they estimate the actual backlog to be.

That'll be the discredited hartnett and crew then will it?

[Britspud]

Sent 'my' MP an e-mail via Writetothem.com

Hi all,

I have sent an e-mail to Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Dorset) in the NTRT suggested format and did so just prior to the committee meeting last week. Apologies that I haven't updated this forum accordingly. I haven't yet had a response from Mr Chope...but did get an auto-acknowledgement.

I'm not actually resident in the UK anymore, so I've used my parent's address etc. Visiting my MP would be difficult...but I will get a real letter sent to him in the coming days.

Thanks to DR and all at NTRT and Whitehouse for all the efforts so far...I joined NTRT a few weeks back and have no problem with reducing the minimum joining fee...the more the merrier!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

At one point HMRC are asked to comment on the media headline about the 40 year backlog and say that they don't recognize that figure at all. They make the point that there can be lead cases which, once resolved allow many others to be resolved also. They wern't asked what they estimate the actual backlog to be.

It is true there can be.

But I understand Montpelier, and all of the other scheme promoters, will be advising clients not to agree to be bound by lead/test cases.

[Britspud]

It is true there can be.

But I understand Montpelier, and all of the other scheme promoters, will be advising clients not to agree to be bound by lead/test cases.

As much faith and admiration as we all have in you DR, I'm afraid I have little faith that HMRC will not try some skullduggery to bypass this and just declare 'public interest' ...or that the tax tribunals will just decide that all these are the same, and reach the same judgement on all MTM cases without needing a hearing or our agreement

I hope I'm wrong!

[nick4notax]

As much faith and admiration as we all have in you DR, I'm afraid I have little faith that HMRC will not try some skullduggery to bypass this and just declare 'public interest' ...or that the tax tribunals will just decide that all these are the same, and reach the same judgement on all MTM cases without needing a hearing or our agreement

I hope I'm wrong!

Well I will seek a hearing and will NOT accept a test case judgement ever, unless it's based on the law that prevailed when the income in question was earnt. I believe that's our right and no HMRC tricks or scare tactics will prevent it.

On another subject: Anyone hear any news about when we'll get our ECHR hearing?

[Toocan]

At one point HMRC are asked to comment on the media headline about the 40 year backlog and say that they don't recognize that figure at all.

Could that be because they are blind to reality?

Perhaps they will retrospectively clarify the number of outstanding cases too.

It beggars belief that they have never once asked me how the scheme worked.

Don’t we deserve a better tax administration than this?