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

[GottaBeOptimistic]

MP feedback

I've also received a letter from my MP this week following the debate on Tuesday. Key comments were as below.....

"In the briefing, members of the steering committee or NTRT gave us a detailed overview of the timeline from 1987 to 2008 that led to this retrospective legislation. They explained how HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) have acted incorrectly and proposed ways to help the campaign, such as writing to David Gauke MP as I have already done.

I should note that the room was primarily concerned by the retrospective nature of the legislation, not about closing the loophole itself prospectively."

He's offered to keep me up to date with any progress and it's really good to see that his view is that all those that attended are focused on the retrospective aspects and that NTRT gave us all very respectable representation.

GottaBeOptimistic

[Richard Splash]

Startling parallel

Before I rant I'd just like to extend my thanks to the entire NTRT team for a marvelous job and hoep that this produces the desired result in the long run - taxable from 2008. Thanks guys please do keep up this sterling work

Another example of how we have been completely discriminated against.

Now where's that much abused word, "fairness"?

Interesting how the British government can bring pressure to bear on another country, but they can't even see the same injustices in their own backyard.

We've always known that fairness is a buzz word and nothing more. It keeps the little people incensed whislt the powers that be go on about thier daily business. but reading that Voadafone piece there are some startling parallels. You can see that if HMRC would have gone to court I reckon the outcome would have been the same. I mean that they'd have retro'd it any which way but lose... I t might have read something like this..

"Montpelier/NTRT has always maintained that it did not owe the HMRC tax since the structure was perfectly legal. HRMC took Montpelier/NTRT three years ago to the Supreme Court which ruled in favour of Montpelier/NTRT and against the HRMC.

However, in a move that caused outrage among Montpelier/NTRT, HMRC introduced a Finance Bill last year to allow it to tax something that they had previously overlooked dating it back to 1987.

Same outcome either way.... we'd still be where we are today.

[Disgusted of Coventry]

A Surprising Communication from our MP...

...Surprising because we had assumed his door was closed to any further dialogue about section 58.

This latest correspondence implies that he's receptive to receiving more info from NTRT.

Astonishing!

Will pass it on to NTRT\Whitehouse for a more professional analysis.

[nevergiveup]

...Surprising because we had assumed his door was closed to any further dialogue about section 58.

This latest correspondence implies that he's receptive to receiving more info from NTRT.

Astonishing!

Will pass it on to NTRT\Whitehouse for a more professional analysis.

Maybe just maybe the word is starting to spread around Parliament about this injustice......

[TAF4]

Maybe just maybe the word is starting to spread around Parliament about this injustice......

I think it is more likely that:
a) They can clear up this rather nasty retrospection issue and look like good guys for doing so.
b) They can stitch up Hector to carry the can
c) They can use it as further evidence of the dangers arising from giving the Manadrins too much influence.

As long as the change in law is ONLY applied prospectively, and no MP gets harmed in making it so, everybody will be happy - Apart from Hector of course.

[travellingknob]

I think it is more likely that:
a) They can clear up this rather nasty retrospection issue and look like good guys for doing so.
b) They can stitch up Hector to carry the can
c) They can use it as further evidence of the dangers arising from giving the Manadrins too much influence.

As long as the change in law is ONLY applied prospectively, and no MP gets harmed in making it so, everybody will be happy - Apart from Hector of course.

I understand gawkes door is still closed so its much too early to be anything other than neutral to negative on whether NTRT will get a result. I guess he spoke against it at the time so it might happen but rather than getting rid of retro completely i think it more likely some sort of su moto deal could be reached. Would still leave a bitter taste and utter distrust but solutions come from compromises
Fantastic work by NTRT nonetheless

[foolishboy]

I understand gawkes door is still closed so its much too early to be anything other than neutral to negative on whether NTRT will get a result. I guess he spoke against it at the time so it might happen but rather than getting rid of retro completely i think it more likely some sort of su moto deal could be reached. Would still leave a bitter taste and utter distrust but solutions come from compromises
Fantastic work by NTRT nonetheless

I am not doing a deal with criminals. Its all or nothing, its about principles.

[BrilloPad]

i think it more likely some sort of su moto deal could be reached.

Not a chance. Way too many people will be made bankrupt. This is fight to the death - winner takes all.

[centurian]

a) They can clear up this rather nasty retrospection issue and look like good guys for doing so.

At best, that's highly optimistic. Anyone that votes to remove the retrospection will almost certainly be labelled as being soft on tax avoidance in many tabloids.

Whether thats true or not is irrelevant - tabloids rarely let facts get in the way of a good story.

That's the fundamental problem. Many MPs privately disagree with s58, but how many are prepared to put themselves in firing line for it and actually vote to remove it.

[orientalist]

"At best, that's highly optimistic. Anyone that votes to remove the retrospection will almost certainly be labelled as being soft on tax avoidance in many tabloids."

We don't want retrospection removed, we want it applied in line with accepted practice, i.e. retrospectively act back to 2008, any earlier is purely hector blind siding and misleading the last and this Government, they all recognise that this can not happen again because of the approach now adopted, so surely a minor technical ammendment in the finance bill to clarify retrospectively the approach to retrospection....