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

[the great escape]

The child catcher

HTH

Apparently they were suppose to step out of their time machine during the industrial age scene. Then get clobbered by workers with hammers.

[Tynos]

Donation

Further donation now made.
Thanks for all your effort NTRT guys.

[p4nd4b34r]

Just read an article in the telegraph People would be happy to see a smaller state - Telegraph which refers to Gaukes demand that we shop plasters, brickies etc. to the scum. I find it odd that the article, mp's and the general public are happy to defend the cash in hand culture, even though its actually out and out tax EVASION. Is it maybe because they have all at one time done it themselves. hypocrisy abounds when it comes to tax .

[smalldog]

Just read an article in the telegraph People would be happy to see a smaller state - Telegraph which refers to Gaukes demand that we shop plasters, brickies etc. to the scum. I find it odd that the article, mp's and the general public are happy to defend the cash in hand culture, even though its actually out and out tax EVASION. Is it maybe because they have all at one time done it themselves. hypocrisy abounds when it comes to tax .

I do actually feel the worm is starting to turn:

Voters may be unforgiving of Mr Gauke, even if they are prepared to overlook the little matter of the expenses. He has just called millions of people immoral while running a tax system of such draconian complexity and unfairness that it routinely encourages personal irresponsibility and perversity.
Mr Gauke might have considered the morality of a tax system that simply takes too much from ordinarily-paid working people. He might, in purely practical terms, think about whether cutting taxes might do something to reduce the number of people evading them.


Read more: Maybe David Gauke should consider whether cutting taxes might do something to reduce the number of people evading them | Mail Online

[the great escape]

Just read an article in the telegraph People would be happy to see a smaller state - Telegraph which refers to Gaukes demand that we shop plasters, brickies etc. to the scum. I find it odd that the article, mp's and the general public are happy to defend the cash in hand culture, even though its actually out and out tax EVASION. Is it maybe because they have all at one time done it themselves. hypocrisy abounds when it comes to tax .

"Tax avoidance schemes using legislation set up by the Government to allow tax to be avoided and used as intended."
- we can assume a pension would satisfy that, although there's no garauntee it will be paid back as intended

"Tax avoidance schemes that use legislation set up by the Government that was not intended to be used for tax avoidance."
- the likes of us, anyone else who employs a tax professional to do the same from the financial services industry which Britain wholly depends upon

"People who deliberately evade tax by not paying what they owe."
- David Gauke's plumber, any proportion of the 270,000 of the tradesmen in the UK

[OnYourBikeGB]

"Tax avoidance schemes using legislation set up by the Government to allow tax to be avoided and used as intended."
- we can assume a pension would satisfy that, although there's no garauntee it will be paid back as intended

"Tax avoidance schemes that use legislation set up by the Government that was not intended to be used for tax avoidance."
- the likes of us, anyone else who employs a tax professional to do the same from the financial services industry which Britain wholly depends upon

"People who deliberately evade tax by not paying what they owe."
- David Gauke's plumber, any proportion of the 270,000 of the tradesmen in the UK

What really gets me is the get out clause that HMRC have been using all along, that they had consistently told us that the scheme didn't work, and had told us to make payments on account. But how does that stack up?

When we asked, as we were entitled to do given that they were demanding life-changing amounts of money from us, they were unable to provide any reason. So what they were attempting to do was to force a compulsory 'donation'. It wasn't a tax, it had no basis in law. It was extortion with threats. Had we paid, it would have been state-sponsored theft. If they believe that we have behaved immorally, is this them behaving morally?

This is nothing to do with morality, everyone has a different definition of the word. That's why we have laws. If laws are bad, they should be fixed. To do so retrospectively, to make the law the plaything of a few individuals to enforce their opinion and to cover their tracks, despite all the evidence that exists that they are wrong and the impact that it could have on thousands, now that is something that is truly repugnant.

[MrX]

What really gets me is the get out clause that HMRC have been using all along, that they had consistently told us that the scheme didn't work, and had told us to make payments on account. But how does that stack up?

When we asked, as we were entitled to do given that they were demanding life-changing amounts of money from us, they were unable to provide any reason. So what they were attempting to do was to force a compulsory 'donation'. It wasn't a tax, it had no basis in law. It was extortion with threats. Had we paid, it would have been state-sponsored theft. If they believe that we have behaved immorally, is this them behaving morally?

This is nothing to do with morality, everyone has a different definition of the word. That's why we have laws. If laws are bad, they should be fixed. To do so retrospectively, to make the law the plaything of a few individuals to enforce their opinion and to cover their tracks, despite all the evidence that exists that they are wrong and the impact that it could have on thousands, now that is something that is truly repugnant.

Couldn't agree more.

[Old Greg]

What really gets me is the get out clause that HMRC have been using all along, that they had consistently told us that the scheme didn't work, and had told us to make payments on account. But how does that stack up?

When we asked, as we were entitled to do given that they were demanding life-changing amounts of money from us, they were unable to provide any reason. So what they were attempting to do was to force a compulsory 'donation'. It wasn't a tax, it had no basis in law. It was extortion with threats. Had we paid, it would have been state-sponsored theft. If they believe that we have behaved immorally, is this them behaving morally?

This is nothing to do with morality, everyone has a different definition of the word. That's why we have laws. If laws are bad, they should be fixed. To do so retrospectively, to make the law the plaything of a few individuals to enforce their opinion and to cover their tracks, despite all the evidence that exists that they are wrong and the impact that it could have on thousands, now that is something that is truly repugnant.

Do you mean morally repugnant?

[BolshieBastard]

What really gets me is the get out clause that HMRC have been using all along, that they had consistently told us that the scheme didn't work, and had told us to make payments on account. But how does that stack up?

When we asked, as we were entitled to do given that they were demanding life-changing amounts of money from us, they were unable to provide any reason. So what they were attempting to do was to force a compulsory 'donation'. It wasn't a tax, it had no basis in law. It was extortion with threats. Had we paid, it would have been state-sponsored theft. If they believe that we have behaved immorally, is this them behaving morally?

This is nothing to do with morality, everyone has a different definition of the word. That's why we have laws. If laws are bad, they should be fixed. To do so retrospectively, to make the law the plaything of a few individuals to enforce their opinion and to cover their tracks, despite all the evidence that exists that they are wrong and the impact that it could have on thousands, now that is something that is truly repugnant.

I think we all agree HMRC's stance that the scheme 'never did work' yet fail to back that up with substantive, legally robust argument, doesnt hold water.

But, when you have judges letting illegal immigrants who have commited heinous crimes stay in the UK based on flacid HR issues of a 'right to family life,' say rapists dont 'pose any harm' because they were laughing and joking at the time etc, etc, you realise the establishment doesnt really give a **** about what context 'fair' really should mean.

[Dazed and Confused]

Donation!

Further donation made, this time to help fund DLA Piper I believe.

Also, latest MP response sent to Whitehouse. Slightly better response this time in that he has written to Gauke rather than sending through the usual brush-off (again).

Keep up the fantastic work folks.