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

[Ninja]

Sounds interesting!!!!! I would guess there are no surprises in the reply though?? More a case of Gauke starting to engage after realising we aren’t going away quietly!!

That's the way I read it.

He tries to re-buff the relevance of both TE63 & Davis' testamony

[Leyther70]

They get off on bullying taxpayers but they shy away from hard work.

Thats a common occurance with tax offices around the world I'm afraid.

I am having similar IR35/Trust type issues with my Tax Office and that quote was almost word for word what my account here said.

The difference is the company who I used have gone into adminstration and hence I have to fight it personally and they know the legal costs for me make this unfeasable, hence i have to accept their shafting as I dont have their deep pockets.

Scumbags all of em!

[swede]

Received mine too.

That's the way I read it.

He tries to re-buff the relevance of both TE63 & Davis' testamony

Should we all be sending these to Whitehouse?

[TalkingCheese]

Should we all be sending these to Whitehouse?

Yes.

[cojak]

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

You may be getting more joiners to NTRT Chaps!

Look out for JP Morgan news...

[Buzby]

EBT Ruling Hits Thousands of Banking Staff

You may be getting more joiners to NTRT Chaps!

Look out for JP Morgan news...

EBT Ruling Hits Thousands of Banking Staff

Around 2,000 British employees of the US bank JP Morgan must pay income tax and national insurance contributions dating back to 2005 after falling foul of disguised remuneration laws..
The bank ran an employee benefit trust (EBT) for the staff – which HM Revenue & Customs has declared as illegal.
In a letter to the employees, HMRC claims the scheme was ‘disguised remuneration’ and an attempt to manage income tax so they paid less on their salaries..
All the staff have to pay up to 40% tax plus 1% national insurance by December 7 or face further penalties.

....

JP Morgan has set up loans and mortgages to help staff owing more than £250,000 to HMRC raise the cash in time to beat the deadline.
The bank disagrees the offshore payments were salary, but has agreed to settle to avoid a costly legal challenge.

I guess JP Morgan do not want any more bad press.

[deckster]

EBT Ruling Hits Thousands of Banking Staff



I guess JP Morgan do not want any more bad press.

Well, more to the point, this isn't retrospection as the courts have already decided that the original scheme didn't actually work:

The most significant was HMRC Commissioners v PA Holdings Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ. 1414 where the Court of Appeal decision upheld HMRC’s arguments that an arrangement intended to deliver a bonus through an EBT was subject to tax and NICs as earnings.

Quite different from our situation.

[VictorValiant]

JP Morgan: Retrospection?

Looks like retrospection from my angle: scheme running since 2005 and yet "legislation not put in place until 2011 to prove beyond doubt ......................the scheme did not work.......................". All sounds very familiar with the time lag and the justification for the latent legislation.

[VictorValiant]

EBT handling

Interesting thing with this case is why JP Morgan employees are having to take the hit and yet Rangers FC players/employees- who allegedly used EBTs as well have seemingly not been penalised in the same way. With the latter case, from media reports, it seems that the Club itself (albeit the Old Co.) is the one under investigation and not the recipients of the EBT benefits.

[TalkingCheese]

Looks like retrospection from my angle: scheme running since 2005 and yet "legislation not put in place until 2011 to prove beyond doubt ......................the scheme did not work.......................". All sounds very familiar with the time lag and the justification for the latent legislation.

Havent read all about it yet but it would be interesting to know if they fully disclosed everything... or if they also had many Self Assessments accepted... or if they were given a valid reason why their arrangements didnt work more than 1 month before proposing a change in the law going back years... or if other users, using exactly the same structure, for exactly the same reason, have been left un-enquired, or if HMRC knew about the loophole for many many years knowing it was used without doing anything about it...