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

[PlaneSailing]

Words, words words

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...20response.pdf

2. No one will be bankrupted by S58 FA 2008.

'merely clarifies the law' Hector, the last time you wrote to me you admitted it was a retrospective change. Would it have
been 'prudent' for the 'compliant' tax payer to have invested in a fortune teller to foresee these changes?

Hector, I was compliant, and here's a thought, I have not avoided any tax. I have paid what was legally due, and more.

[Old Greg]

Is it possible that they had an attack of conscience?

Too outlandish?

[BolshieBastard]

Highlights from letter from David Gauke….

It may be helpful to be clear that the tax arrangements used by xxx were described by the courts as wholly artificial tax avoidance scheme.

You mention TN63 produced by HMRC – my understanding is that this internal note expressed a view on the merits of only one possible challenge to the avoidance scheme. It is clear that TN63 as a whole that HMRC was gathering information in order to challenge the avoidance scheme on an alternative basic, rather than accept it. The existence and purpose of this note was considered as part of the JR. As I have previously said HMRC has consistently maintained that the avoidance scheme does not work and notified users of this within the statutory time limits.

MR xxx refers to statements made by former Financial secretary. The Hansard record of the debate refereed to by XXX includes a clear statement by Jane Kennedy that HMRC was aware of the 2000 scheme users, and that this number was increasing. With regard to the question of an impact assessment, as the court sets out in its judgment at the time that the decision was made HMRC knew with reasonable precision the number of taxpayers who had sought to obtain advantages from the artificial arrangements and that amount of income tax as stake. In assessing the impact of the change HMRC has satisfied itself that amongst other factors, the legislation would not inadvertently apply to those not using the scheme and that those choosing to use the scheme had received professional advice and that no commercial justification had been offered.
The separate decision not to publish a regulatory impact assessment was in line with HMRC general policy of not publishing a regulatory impact assessment where a measure does not target the complaint taxpaying public. The court considered that the absence of such an assessment did not affect the proportionality of the retro legislation.

The comprehensive judgments provided by the courts took account of the other points raised by xxxx in the note he has provided but, as I have previously mentioned, if a user of a scheme is now having short term difficulties in meeting their tax liabilities HMRC is able to exercise discretion through established procedures by allowing additional time to pay, blah, blah

What a liar he is and clearly owns a time machine!

gauke is a grade one fooking toad putting out that bulltulip. I hope he chokes on his cornflake the duplicitous baarstard.

[Taffia]

Just got another load of fantasy lies from Gauke via my MP. I agree with people below, someone else is writing this stuff but their problem is everything they say is total lies. Like people often say - you can keep saying it but it won't make it true....

I'll be replying to my MP pointing out the total inaccuracy of the content of the excuse for a response. I suspect that this guy must be the most annoying MP for other MPs that there has ever been - his reputation must be sh1te generally since so many people are constantly complaining about the hypocracy he spews.

He must have been busy with his right hand (signing letters) as I've just had the same thing as a few others over recent days.

Why would you put your name to something you don't actually believe? Or does he? As someone said a few days ago, he's worse than Timms.

Will wait for the latest Whitehouse letter before replying through the proper channels. Luckily I bumped into my MP earlier and verbally told him what a pile of tulip that was.

[BolshieBastard]

Comparing these letters and other correspondence it is pretty obvious that HMRC are writing them and Gauke is just signing them.

I doubt Gauke has even read them carefully (if at all).

Just got another load of fantasy lies from Gauke via my MP. I agree with people below, someone else is writing this stuff but their problem is everything they say is total lies. Like people often say - you can keep saying it but it won't make it true....

I'll be replying to my MP pointing out the total inaccuracy of the content of the excuse for a response. I suspect that this guy must be the most annoying MP for other MPs that there has ever been - his reputation must be sh1te generally since so many people are constantly complaining about the hypocracy he spews.

People need to stop deluding themselves that gauke doesnt read the letters he's signing. He's a government minister, Exchequer Secretary no less. Of course he reads them. I just dont know how he can reconcile himself after being so against S58 to now being fully behind it.

Oh wait, I do. He's in a ministerial job paying a big fat £40k - £50k more and able to 'run the country's finance' than if he'd just been a backbencher, the snivelling tulip.

[moira under the stairs]

Too outlandish?

[screwthis]

Could two words end this nonsense?

As I have previously said HMRC has consistently maintained that the avoidance scheme does not work and notified users of this within the statutory time limits.

Prove it!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

People need to stop deluding themselves that gauke doesnt read the letters he's signing. He's a government minister, Exchequer Secretary no less. Of course he reads them. I just dont know how he can reconcile himself after being so against S58 to now being fully behind it.

Oh wait, I do. He's in a ministerial job paying a big fat £40k - £50k more and able to 'run the country's finance' than if he'd just been a backbencher, the snivelling tulip.

Sure he will give them a cursory read but I bet he hasn't had any involvement in the drafting.

I would put money on it that these letters have been penned by HMRC.

[Disgusted of Coventry]

Highlights from letter from David Gauke….

"It may be helpful to be clear...

blah, blah, blah"

It has to be said - HMRC\Gauke are creating internal inconsistencies on an industrial scale.

That's the trouble with lies. They're notoriously difficult to maintain, especially when put under the microscope.

It must be driving them mad - those who are given the responsibility of drafting these letters. The level of difficulty is increasing exponentially for each successive response.

[BolshieBastard]

Sure he will give them a cursory read but I bet he hasn't had any involvement in the drafting.

I would put money on it that these letters have been penned by HMRC.

Ministerial letters work like this; Letter is received from MP's constituent which is forwarded to the minister's correspondence team. They send a copy of the letter to the relevant department, in this case, HMRC. They will ask the department to provide answers for the minister to the constituent's letter generally and specific points ie S58, how many would be bankrupted etc, etc.

When this is received by the department, it is sent to the departments special correspondence team which is generally split into ministerial corres and 'ordinary' MP corres. More senior civil servants will deal with ministerial corres, normally HEO grade and above although they may ask an EO to do some leg work to find some relevant details.

All the info is gathered then, the department's reply will be drafted by the HEO. This will be proofed by an SEO before a Grade 7 (previously a Principal) gives it the final once over. At any time up to this point, the department's response can be changed.

It is then returned to the minister's correspondence team to consider whether the department has provided sufficient information, rebuttals and answers, whatever. If thy consider the department's answers are insufficient for the minister, they will ask the department for more information.

The minister's correspondence team will then draft a letter for the minister to consider. This may go through a couple of drafts and be presented to the minister for approval. Once minister's approval to the draft is given, the final version will be 'typed up' on ministerial paper.

This will be put before the minister for his signature. I know people might like to think there's some clone or other person signs the minister's name but, this does not happen.

So, indirectly HMRC will have 'written' the letter and, the minister will have read and signed it.