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

[mrkitchen]

Extract of reply from my MP, just recieved

'The Government is in the process of bringing forward legislation pertaining to a general anti avoidance rule, which should make the taxation system much clearer moving forward. I appreciate this does not help you in your current situation, but it will ensure that the reocurrence of such circumstance does happen in the future.'

Also he is unable to attend the meeting due to more pressing prior commitment !

Very comforting, I will forward to NTRT.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

What's the is the point of Europe then if it won't stop the collection? If Monty is vidicated out in Brussels or where ever in 5 years or so, can we expect a refund? - there's some sort of 6-7 year cut-off for that. Or is Europe just an attempt to restore Montpelier's name in the tax planning good books?

If (and it's a big IF) the application is accepted then HMG would be formally put on notice by the court.

Once that happened I think it's very unlikely HMRC would try to collect. NTRT/Whitehouse would kick up a tulipstorm in Parliament if they did.

However, it could be a year or even longer before the application is considered by the court, and I'm afraid I'm not very optimistic they will accept it.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

One thing the ECHR application does have in its favour is that Montpelier have used a far more eminent barrister this time. If it gets rejected it won't be because they picked the wrong brief.

David Pannick, Baron Pannick - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Lord Pannick QC - Blackstone Chambers

[centurian]

Bet he doesn't come cheap

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Bet he doesn't come cheap

Think top IT contractor daily rates...

...but per hour!

[BrilloPad]

If (and it's a big IF) the application is accepted then HMG would be formally put on notice by the court.

Once that happened I think it's very unlikely HMRC would try to collect. NTRT/Whitehouse would kick up a tulipstorm in Parliament if they did.

However, it could be a year or even longer before the application is considered by the court, and I'm afraid I'm not very optimistic they will accept it.

Very useful information - cheers DR!

[the great escape]

One thing the ECHR application does have in its favour is that Montpelier have used a far more eminent barrister this time. If it gets rejected it won't be because they picked the wrong brief.

David Pannick, Baron Pannick - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Lord Pannick QC - Blackstone Chambers

Ditto re:financing these goliaths of the legal community. It's frightening how much justice costs and that it can be perverted simply because the minions can't afford it.

So am I right in assuming that this has come down to a 3 horse race then. Monty trying to get their appeal lodged before HMRC come a knocking. NTRT trying to change opinion to get an amendment in the next finnance act before the same. The Brani-gang trying to get the tribunal over and done with before any of this takes hold and drops him and his mob right in it - yes?

[the great escape]

So has Montp got any technical arguement left to deliver or is everything hanging on a 'no to retro' thread? For me sometimes, it's almost like the act of retrospection has overun everything and the focus is on what effect the retrospection is having/will have and whether that's justified. But how can something perfectly legal be overidden by the morality of tax avoidance, unless the current govt is trying to cash in on the austerity vibe. Behold the answer from my Gauke brainwashed MP in his rejection of my briefing invite...

By way of background, the govt is having to make tough decisions to deal with the deficit left by the last govt., and it is determined to collect those taxes which are legally incurred by business and individuals

So when the country was flush circa 2000 - legal avoidance perfectly acceptable. 2010 everyone skint, not much tax coming in - time for reinterpretation of the law. We must be living in Holland - loads of Tulip everywhere.

[SantaClaus]

So has Montp got any technical arguement left to deliver or is everything hanging on a 'no to retro' thread? For me sometimes, it's almost like the act of retrospection has overun everything and the focus is on what effect the retrospection is having/will have and whether that's justified. But how can something perfectly legal be overidden by the morality of tax avoidance, unless the current govt is trying to cash in on the austerity vibe. Behold the answer from my Gauke brainwashed MP in his rejection of my briefing invite...

By way of background, the govt is having to make tough decisions to deal with the deficit left by the last govt., and it is determined to collect those taxes which are legally incurred by business and individuals

So when the country was flush circa 2000 - legal avoidance perfectly acceptable. 2010 everyone skint, not much tax coming in - time for reinterpretation of the law. We must be living in Holland - loads of Tulip everywhere.

Of course, the government only make "tough decisions" when it suits them.
Otherwise Google, Starbucks and Amazon would all be paying back the tax they should have paid retrospectively. And the UK government wouldn't have interfered with India's attempted retrospective taxation of Vodafone. Oh... and JP Morgan employees wouldn't have been given a deal for their EBT schemes.

I could go on... the list is endless.

[OnYourBikeGB]

Of course, the government only make "tough decisions" when it suits them.
Otherwise Google, Starbucks and Amazon would all be paying back the tax they should have paid retrospectively. And the UK government wouldn't have interfered with India's attempted retrospective taxation of Vodafone. Oh... and JP Morgan employees wouldn't have been given a deal for their EBT schemes.

I could go on... the list is endless.

And let's not also forget that by offering tax breaks and incentives for foreign investors may well be viewed as encouraging tax avoidance by other Governments. Take Bono as an example, he moves his money to the Netherlands (as do companies like Apple). The Dutch government aren't complaining, they've encouraged investment. The Irish government cry foul, while at the same time pushing their 12.5% corporation tax to encourage investment, causing the British government to cry foul, while the British government let multi-billionaires practically pick their own rate and HMRC have cozy five course meals with the big corporations to keep their trade. It's only tax avoidance when it's someone doing it to them, it's attractive incentives when they're doing it to someone else. All this bulltulip about Starbucks and Amazon will all blow over and disappear and they won't be paying a penny more than they are today, or at the very worst, they will simply avoid tax in another country and it'll be the same net result. They and the Government know the score. Our problem was we didn't know our place.