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

[DonkeyRhubarb]

HMRC criticised over £10.2bn backlog of 41,000 avoidance cases

HMRC criticised over £10.2bn backlog of 41,000 avoidance cases - New Model Adviser®

[BrilloPad]

Did anybody else see the interview? I think it was Ian Davidson. He basically said that whilst the Rangers case was perfectly legal it was immoral.

So even when a Tax Tribunal says its legal these MPs still bang on the drum of moral high ground.

That's what we are up against !

Indeed. But the law was not changed retrospectively for them.

[SantaClaus]

HMRC criticised over £10.2bn backlog of 41,000 avoidance cases - New Model Adviser®

There's a great comment on the website, worth repeating in full:

Well, whatever stick the HMRC gets for a backlog of 41,000 avoidance cases, it will I think pale into insignificance compared to the brickbats it will get over the fiasco of the Glasgow Rangers Employee Benefits Trust case decided yesterday in the Tax Tribunal.

HMRC lost.

Big time.

For years HMRC had been hounding Rangers for supposedly millions of unpaid tax which HMRC claimed was unlawfully avoided by the use of EBTs.

It petitioned for Rangers liquidation and it achieved its goal – Rangers as was, a national Scottish and football institution, went for an early bath.

Only now it seems that its tax planning was not unlawful, as its designers argued all along, and that it was HMRC that got it wrong.

So what redress do the real creditors, shareholders and fans of Glasgow Rangers have now? To whom do they complain about the wanton destruction of such an institution?

There is a great deal of beating of breasts and gnashing of teeth about the immorality of not paying tax. Why should anyone pay tax they do not lawfully need to pay? How can adhering to the law of the land be morally repugnant?

What can be more morally repugnant than a governmental agency with almost unlimited power abusing those powers, and being encouraged to do so by the elected politicians (whose financial morals are of course without blemish – Aye Right ! ), to pursue relentlessly a company or an individual who is organising their affairs within the letter of the law?

[Notsonew]

3rd round of donation done.

Finally donated, remortgage money come through, unbelievable how long it took, but first payment to ntrt.

Really good website, lots of useful info , really recommend others to join if they can, many thanks to the people who have worked on this.

Happily 3rd round donation done. Lets keep moving forward.

Best wishes

[MrX]

Morality

When the question of morality comes up, I always think about the following:

You go up to any person in the street and say to them, "You can a) pay 40% tax on all the money you've earned or b) 20%. Both methods are legally fine. Which one do you want to do?"

I can't think of any sane person who would pick a).

[smalldog]

There's a great comment on the website, worth repeating in full:

Well, whatever stick the HMRC gets for a backlog of 41,000 avoidance cases, it will I think pale into insignificance compared to the brickbats it will get over the fiasco of the Glasgow Rangers Employee Benefits Trust case decided yesterday in the Tax Tribunal.

HMRC lost.

Big time.

For years HMRC had been hounding Rangers for supposedly millions of unpaid tax which HMRC claimed was unlawfully avoided by the use of EBTs.

It petitioned for Rangers liquidation and it achieved its goal – Rangers as was, a national Scottish and football institution, went for an early bath.

Only now it seems that its tax planning was not unlawful, as its designers argued all along, and that it was HMRC that got it wrong.

So what redress do the real creditors, shareholders and fans of Glasgow Rangers have now? To whom do they complain about the wanton destruction of such an institution?

There is a great deal of beating of breasts and gnashing of teeth about the immorality of not paying tax. Why should anyone pay tax they do not lawfully need to pay? How can adhering to the law of the land be morally repugnant?

What can be more morally repugnant than a governmental agency with almost unlimited power abusing those powers, and being encouraged to do so by the elected politicians (whose financial morals are of course without blemish – Aye Right ! ), to pursue relentlessly a company or an individual who is organising their affairs within the letter of the law?

and what recourse and compensation do the individuals or companies have if they are made insolvent by the action, only to find later it was unlawful?

[Buzby]

HMRC and insolvency

and what recourse and compensation do the individuals or companies have if they are made insolvent by the action, only to find later it was unlawful?

if HMRC have to compensate, I wonder if the government would introduce a law to ensure it doesn't happen again. would this mean HMRC cannot make individuals or companies insolvent until all legal appeals have been concluded - including Europe.

[normalbloke]

There's a great comment on the website, worth repeating in full:

Well, whatever stick the HMRC gets for a backlog of 41,000 avoidance cases, it will I think pale into insignificance compared to the brickbats it will get over the fiasco of the Glasgow Rangers Employee Benefits Trust case decided yesterday in the Tax Tribunal.

HMRC lost.

Big time.

For years HMRC had been hounding Rangers for supposedly millions of unpaid tax which HMRC claimed was unlawfully avoided by the use of EBTs.

It petitioned for Rangers liquidation and it achieved its goal – Rangers as was, a national Scottish and football institution, went for an early bath.

Only now it seems that its tax planning was not unlawful, as its designers argued all along, and that it was HMRC that got it wrong.

So what redress do the real creditors, shareholders and fans of Glasgow Rangers have now? To whom do they complain about the wanton destruction of such an institution?

There is a great deal of beating of breasts and gnashing of teeth about the immorality of not paying tax. Why should anyone pay tax they do not lawfully need to pay? How can adhering to the law of the land be morally repugnant?

What can be more morally repugnant than a governmental agency with almost unlimited power abusing those powers, and being encouraged to do so by the elected politicians (whose financial morals are of course without blemish – Aye Right ! ), to pursue relentlessly a company or an individual who is organising their affairs within the letter of the law?

I thought Rangers went under due to unpaid VAT and Corporation Tax - not for the supposed NI due on the EBT scheme?

[lucozade]

I thought Rangers went under due to unpaid VAT and Corporation Tax - not for the supposed NI due on the EBT scheme?

Nope it was because HMRC refused them a CVA expecting that they would win the big tax case. They had been previously offered £10m to settle this even although it has now been proven legal.

HMRC were the downfall of RFC.

[bollox]

When the question of morality comes up, I always think about the following:

You go up to any person in the street and say to them, "You can a) pay 40% tax on all the money you've earned or b) 20%. Both methods are legally fine. Which one do you want to do?"

I can't think of any sane person who would pick a).

but wasn't Jimmy Carr vilified for doing exactly this ?