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

[VictorValiant]

Keep Upbeat

The tone of the recent correspondence has been markedly downbeat and I can see why - due to the seeming lack of progress coming from any direction. But just recall that we have been through periods like this previously and shafts of light have come through - often from unexpected quarters. It may well be that nothing further develops until we get to the FTT stage - I don't know. There again there may be something come out of left field from ECHR and MP (has anyone heard any news on that front?). Having come so far there is nothing to be gained by throwing the mental towel in now - keep persevering and battering the doors down. I am due to see my MP later on this month (he failed to show last month). I am not expecting much action from him but I intend to keep pestering him until he foams at the mouth.

[nevergiveup]

As my MP recommended we have to hammer home the injustice of doing something legal that was merely clarified according to the treasury and then made law using a time machine. My response letter to him is going to contain some strong language as I'm now at the point of feeling sick that a government department (HMRC) is allowed to behave in this manner and play with people's lives. This has become very personal for me now and it's simply a witchhunt and I'm not going down without taking others with me. I'll bloody camp outside parliament if I have to.

WHS +1

Getting my sleeping bag ready!!

[lucozade]

The tone of the recent correspondence has been markedly downbeat and I can see why - due to the seeming lack of progress coming from any direction. But just recall that we have been through periods like this previously and shafts of light have come through - often from unexpected quarters. It may well be that nothing further develops until we get to the FTT stage - I don't know. There again there may be something come out of left field from ECHR and MP (has anyone heard any news on that front?). Having come so far there is nothing to be gained by throwing the mental towel in now - keep persevering and battering the doors down. I am due to see my MP later on this month (he failed to show last month). I am not expecting much action from him but I intend to keep pestering him until he foams at the mouth.

Be prepared. My MP suggested the Treasury should be going after the scheme promoters and not the victims. My response - "why - they didn't do anything wrong. Legal tax planning IS legal tax planning. Please explain to me how IR35 works so I can arrange my affairs properly". He had no answer. I firmly believe we should be chasing down this route as IR35 is still getting "clarified".

The sad fact is I'm sure the majority of us jumped into a perfectly legal scheme because of the uncertainty of IR35.

Where there is blame there is a claim - it's IR35 and the idiots who implemented such an unclear set of rules that pushed us into these schemes.

I'm livid tonight and having a few single malts to calm myself down :-)

[nevergiveup]

Be prepared. My MP suggested the Treasury should be going after the scheme promoters and not the victims. My response - "why - they didn't do anything wrong. Legal tax planning IS legal tax planning. Please explain to me how IR35 works so I can arrange my affairs properly". He had no answer. I firmly believe we should be chasing down this route as IR35 is still getting "clarified".

The sad fact is I'm sure the majority of us jumped into a perfectly legal scheme because of the uncertainty of IR35.

Where there is blame there is a claim - it's IR35 and the idiots who implemented such an unclear set of rules that pushed us into these schemes.

I'm livid tonight and having a few single malts to calm myself down :-)

Only reason I used scheme was IR35. Wish I could invent a Time Machine!!!

I'm still keeping my chin up although it's hard not to think about it.

I'm sure the NTRT newsletter next week will have some better news!

[Alba]

Begs the question the "Organ Grinder or the Monkey"

Be prepared. My MP suggested the Treasury should be going after the scheme promoters and not the victims. My response - "why - they didn't do anything wrong. Legal tax planning IS legal tax planning. Please explain to me how IR35 works so I can arrange my affairs properly". He had no answer. I firmly believe we should be chasing down this route as IR35 is still getting "clarified".

The sad fact is I'm sure the majority of us jumped into a perfectly legal scheme because of the uncertainty of IR35.

Where there is blame there is a claim - it's IR35 and the idiots who implemented such an unclear set of rules that pushed us into these schemes.

I'm livid tonight and having a few single malts to calm myself down :-)

Judges lead 'sheltered lives', warns Britain's most senior female judge
Britain’s most senior female judge has warned that her colleagues on the bench may lack common sense because they have lived “sheltered lives”.
Baroness Hale of Richmond, the first and only woman to sit in the Supreme Court, echoed a criticism view that judges who have risen through the Bar, the Temples and other parts of the “establishment” are not always ideally placed to cast judgment on the complexities of modern life.

In a speech, Lady Hale said: “If the life-blood of the law is experience and common sense, then whose experience and common sense are we talking about?

“Surely it cannot only be the experience and common sense of the judges, many of whom have led such sheltered lives? As I was once rude enough to say publicly, 'one man’s common sense is another woman’s hopeless idiocy’.”

Last year the Judicial College announced that judges would be given lessons in popular culture, as well as other social issues such as unemployment, so they were “fully aware of what is happening on the streets of Britain”.

It came after years of jokes about out of touch judges who would ask embarrassing questions in court, notably Mr Justice Harman asking “who is Gazza?” when Paul Gascoigne, the international footballer was at the height of his fame.
Lady Hale has previously criticised the way judicial appointments are made from a pool of predominantly white males from similar backgrounds.

In her speech at the University of York, Lady Hale said: “I think that judges ignore the wider context in which they do their work at their peril.

"I agree with Lord Neuberger [the president of the Supreme Court] that the life-blood of the common law is experience and common sense.

“And it is therefore dangerous for the common law to rely upon the experience and common sense of a comparatively narrow section of society.

“One counter to this is the study of law in its wider context. Another, of course, is to recruit our judges from a wider section of society.”

She also told the Socio-Legal Studies Association conference that more work should be done to ensure juries abide by instructions from the court to prevent them researching cases independently.

“We clearly need more research on what works and what does not work in getting juries to do as they are told,” she said.

[swede]

Be prepared. My MP suggested the Treasury should be going after the scheme promoters and not the victims. My response - "why - they didn't do anything wrong. Legal tax planning IS legal tax planning. Please explain to me how IR35 works so I can arrange my affairs properly". He had no answer. I firmly believe we should be chasing down this route as IR35 is still getting "clarified".

The sad fact is I'm sure the majority of us jumped into a perfectly legal scheme because of the uncertainty of IR35.

Where there is blame there is a claim - it's IR35 and the idiots who implemented such an unclear set of rules that pushed us into these schemes.

I'm livid tonight and having a few single malts to calm myself down :-)

His idea about the Treasury going after promoters instead of victims is interesting. Interesting in itself, and interesting because I wonder how many other MPs might think this.

I'm seeing my MP on Friday this week, he's on the Treasury select committee. Am not sure how that's going to pan out, but I can imagine!

[NotAllThere]

...
Unfortunately most, including my own MP, are career politicians who have never worked in the real world and follow political and ideological theory to the letter and represent their own self serving interests. ...

This is true. What you have to do is convince them that your interests are their interests. Sometimes that can be achieved by revealing, e.g. an embarrassing injustice.

[helen7]

Do we need a change of approach here?

Why not lobby Gauke and MP's to chase the scheme promoters for the liability, not the client.

Trying to have them take out the retrospective changes was always a brick wall since the courts have already said it was fair and just. Why would they take it out now? Because they don't want to hurt our feelings? There doesn't seem to be a legal argument in our favour.

Montpellier were our tax advisors; to whom we paid large sums of money to handle our tax affairs. If they failed to do this they should be held liable.

I understand that if Huitson looses at the FTT we will get a demand with 30 days to pay (or incur penalties). Is there any likelihood we will be able to appeal in wait of the ECHR? I think I read that HMRC will not wait for the ECHR outcome.

Is now the time to start looking into our legal position against Montpellier?

[TalkingCheese]

...There doesn't seem to be a legal argument in our favour...

The problem is that evidence that was used in the JR, and that the decision was based on was not true (call it lies, call it unknowing untruths the fact remains). There has also been a lot of evidence uncovered that shows the arrangement was known about and was accepted by HMRC/parliament. Couple that with the fact Hansard wasnt allowed as evidence and the story looks very different.

[LandRover]

Do we need a change of approach here?

Why not lobby Gauke and MP's to chase the scheme promoters for the liability, not the client.

Trying to have them take out the retrospective changes was always a brick wall since the courts have already said it was fair and just. Why would they take it out now? Because they don't want to hurt our feelings? There doesn't seem to be a legal argument in our favour.

Montpellier were our tax advisors; to whom we paid large sums of money to handle our tax affairs. If they failed to do this they should be held liable.

I understand that if Huitson looses at the FTT we will get a demand with 30 days to pay (or incur penalties). Is there any likelihood we will be able to appeal in wait of the ECHR? I think I read that HMRC will not wait for the ECHR outcome.

Is now the time to start looking into our legal position against Montpellier?

I know that Aberdeen Asset Management lost their case being the employer, they had the responsibility to deduct Tax and NI before paying out fund to employees.

Upper Tribunal decision in Aberdeen Asset discounted options case
The Upper Tribunal has given its decision in Aberdeen Asset Management which concerns a tax avoidance scheme known as the Discounted Options Scheme (DOS) established by Aberdeen Asset Management (AAM) with the aim of providing additional remuneration to a number of their employees. The employer funded an offshore employee benefit trust (EBT) which then established family benefit sub-trusts (FBT) for each of the employee beneficiaries. The EBT also created and funded a separate money-box company for each beneficiary. By having the money-box company grant to the FBT options to subscribe for a substantial number of shares (in the event unexercised) it was hoped to dilute the fiscal value of the beneficial interest enjoyed by each employee in ‘his’ money box company. How the funds were used, and whether or when they were extracted, was for the individual employees to decide. The First-tier Tier Tribunal decided that the scheme did not succeed in avoiding income tax. That decision was not appealed. However, the Upper Tribunal had to decide was who was liable for the tax. Warren J held that the shares were ‘readily convertible assets’ and so within the scope of PAYE. However, he did not accept that the provision of shares in the money box companies amounted to ordinary payment for PAYE purposes.

http://www.tribunals.gov.uk/financea...PLC_v_HMRC.pdf