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

[swede]

Useful?

Same here. Mine has told me he didn't realise what he was voting for.

Are Whitehouse able to do anything with comments like these?

[Taffia]

Are Whitehouse able to do anything with comments like these?

Nothing in writing, it was a verbal comment.

[ContractIn]

Letter from MP

Just got response from MP with.....

"I appreciate that you have continued concerns but after reviewng your case, I feel that, regrettably, the position has been made clear. As a result, I do not feel that I can be of any further help with this particular matter"



He has never ever even given an opinion on this matter only stated he will forward my letter on, so why take this line now?

DR - do you want any further details on this?

[SLB]

just seen this post on another thread, maybe HMRC didn't want to go to tax tribunal because if they lost they couldn't then 'clarify' the law retrospectively?

would FOI request show details of why the 4 test cases never proceeded, or do we have to wait for the ombudsman?

"That said the Government do like to try it on, however in our case they would find it difficult to retrospectively legislate as there are existing court cases which have looked at the arrangements and confirmed the interpretation of the law so any retrospection would be contrary to the already established case law. There is also a provision in the trust deed we use which allows for the terms of the trust to be retrospectively amended."

Hi Buzby,
Can you tell me which tax planning scheme the above quote you published relates to and the scheme provider?
PMing me is fine if you'd prefer.
Thanks.

[Mister Clark]

"That said the Government do like to try it on, however in our case they would find it difficult to retrospectively legislate as there are existing court cases which have looked at the arrangements and confirmed the interpretation of the law so any retrospection would be contrary to the already established case law. There is also a provision in the trust deed we use which allows for the terms of the trust to be retrospectively amended."

Hi Buzby,
Can you tell me which tax planning scheme the above quote you published relates to and the scheme provider?
PMing me is fine if you'd prefer.
Thanks.

Have a look at the Breeze thread.

[PhilBreeze]

just seen this post on another thread, maybe HMRC didn't want to go to tax tribunal because if they lost they couldn't then 'clarify' the law retrospectively?

Somewhat cynically I would be inclined to agree. It is a bit odd that HMRC never tested this in the Courts. My interpretation would be that they weren't sufficiently confident of succeeding.

[Fireship]

Somewhat cynically I would be inclined to agree. It is a bit odd that HMRC never tested this in the Courts. My interpretation would be that they weren't sufficiently confident of succeeding.

Agreed as once they had lost a tribunal retrospection wouldn’t have been possible as it would contradict pre-existing case law….. Asking us to wait on four test cases which they knew would never happen was a deliberate stalling tactic and clearly shows HMRC are willing to lie to the public in order to serve their own agenda – I can only hope the perpetrators are hauled over the coals for by our legal team!

[PhilBreeze]

Yep, and some of the scare stories in the media could almost have been dictated by an HMRC mandarin. The Sunday Times carries at least 2 stories every week that sound like a state sponsored tax warning.

You're not suggesting that a Murdoch owned newspaper is deliberately peddling scare stories that further the Government's agenda are you ???

[SLB]

Have a look at the Breeze thread.

Thanks, will do.

[Cornish Cream]

2 letters...

while on holiday I received 2 letters - one from Mike Elland, Director General HMRC in response to my letter to my MP asking for help - has anyone else received a response from HMRC? The point of the letter was to say that courts found it reasonable for HMRC to take decisive and effective action (what a laugh that is - decisive and effective LOL) HMRC consistently maintained that the sceme did not work and that the enactment of section 58 clarified the law - also finally it was not within HMRC's remit to consider any amendment to section 58.

Second letter was to confirm that my MP Jeremy Lefroy has asked Gauke to meet with NTRT to at least listen to what they have to say :-) Thank you JLF