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

[foolishboy]

holy smoke...

A couple of minor points.

The letters actually came from the team in Middlesborough dealing with the scheme, not Manchester.

There was nothing different about these clients' circumstances than anyone else who received discovery enquiries, reinforcing the precedent this sets.

Coupled with the precedent of some scheme users receiving confirmation that investigations into their returns were closed, does this latest news create a big enough inconsistency to TOTALLY undermine HMRC's whole argument?

I am going to enjoy bringing these arguments up at my tax tribunal.

[BrilloPad]

I am going to enjoy bringing these arguments up at my tax tribunal.

Me too. The other 1898 tribunals will probably be similar.

[foolishboy]

Me too. The other 1898 tribunals will probably be similar.

Times that number by each year that every scheme member made a SA.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Inconsistencies

I think I have included everything.

1. Several hundred users never investigated. (There is something about this that I can't reveal on a public forum.)
2. Several hundred enquiries opened under discovery.
3. Numerous instances of enquiries closed with no amendment, thereby accepting DTR claims in full.
4. Suo Motu deal - no NIC, no interest, discounted rate of tax.
5. Invalid closure notices withdrawn due to procedural errors.

[foolishboy]

Inconsistencies

I think I have included everything.

1. Several hundred users never investigated. (There is something about this that I can't reveal on a public forum.)
2. Several hundred enquiries opened under discovery.
3. Numerous instances of enquiries closed with no amendment, thereby accepting DTR claims in full.
4. Suo Motu deal - no NIC, no interest, discounted rate of tax.
5. Invalid closure notices withdrawn due to procedural errors.

How about the inconsistency of giving us every indication in writing for many years that we would be subject to the normal tax tribunal process, which should have been our constitutional right!
One of the main tenets of tax law is that it is Certain

[Buzby]

gauke latest response

Apologies if this has already been posted.

I just received the response below from Gauke refusing to meet with NTRT. I have sent a copy on to DR.

Thank you for your letter bla bla...

It is important to understand that X chose to use a wholly artificial scheme in
order to avoid the tax he is due to pay as a resident of the UK upon his income earned in
the UK. T...

The previous Government gave full consideration
to the circumstances surrounding the use of this artificial scheme before concluding that
it was reasonable and proportionate to introduce retrospective legislation to put beyond
doubt that the scheme does not work. I do not propose to disturb this outcome.

Ibla bla...

this doesn't match with the Jane Kennedy email, or the fact that the JCHR wasn't involved.

can a FOI request try and see the details of this 'full consideration'?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

How about the inconsistency of giving us every indication in writing for many years that we would be subject to the normal tax tribunal process, which should have been our constitutional right!
One of the main tenets of tax law is that it is Certain

There's another inconsistency.

The 2008 Budget contained 8 measures that closed loopholes to do with tax avoidance schemes - BN21,22,23,25,26,37,63,66

But only BN66 was retrospective. Why was this singled out for such draconian action?

[slogger]

There's another inconsistency.

The 2008 Budget contained 8 measures that closed loopholes to do with tax avoidance schemes - BN21,22,23,25,26,37,63,66

But only BN66 was retrospective. Why was this singled out for such draconian action?

could be lots of reasons i guess - montpelier being targeted, scheme too successful, bad luck in that it just happened to be caught by person who had a bee in their bonnet, however I think to be honest - we where just unlucky to be in this at a time when govt strapped for cash and panicking trying to get as much as they can from whatever they deem is a soft target...

[TAF4]

we were just unlucky to be in this at a time when govt strapped for cash and panicking trying to get as much as they can from whatever they deem is a soft target...

No - I don't think that conclusion fits the timeline. The Padmore wheeze was dreamt up whilst the one-eyed idiot was still 'prudently' p'ing it up the wall. The Treasury and Hector obviously felt they would get smarty-pants Brownie points (geddit?) and cover up their incompetance at the same time.

I believe it was personal and aimed at shafting MrG and his Montpelier establishment.

[smalldog]

No - I don't think that conclusion fits the timeline. The Padmore wheeze was dreamt up whilst the one-eyed idiot was still 'prudently' p'ing it up the wall. The Treasury and Hector obviously felt they would get smarty-pants Brownie points (geddit?) and cover up their incompetance at the same time.

I believe it was personal and aimed at shafting MrG and his Montpelier establishment.

I agree, this was a witch hunt, pure and simple. Somebody at HMRC was throwing their toys out the pram and basically being a vindictive little tulip.