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

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Whitehouse sent out an e-mailshot today to members who didn't appear to have made contact with their MP or if they had we didn't have a record of it.

They have had a very good response to this email. So good in fact that it may take them some time to follow up all the responses.

If you replied to the email, please can you given them a week or so to get back to you before chasing them.

Many thanks
DR

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Just for infor chaps - HMRC have published examples of arrangements that will fall foul of GAAR - see page 45 - Huitson http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/avoidance/gaa...d-examples.pdf

[PlaneSailing]

Just for infor chaps - HMRC have published examples of arrangements that will fall foul of GAAR - see page 45 - Huitson http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/avoidance/gaa...d-examples.pdf

Thanks Lisa.

This is how HMRC get in trouble. The judicial review had nothing to do with whether the arrangements worked or not. It was to see whether human rights legislation had been broken by the retrospection. And, last I heard this was still underway in Europe.

And as for ' This could not have been the intention when the relevant provisions were negotiated and enacted.' . It' s not for HMRC to say, and moreover Hansards disagrees.

[TalkingCheese]

Just for infor chaps - HMRC have published examples of arrangements that will fall foul of GAAR - see page 45 - Huitson http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/avoidance/gaa...d-examples.pdf

"HMRC had never accepted that the arrangements gave rise to the claimed tax result. On the contrary HMRC had advised taxpayers that the arrangements did not succeed and advised them to pay tax on that basis. "

I cant speak for Huitson but for many others "HMRC had advised taxpayers that the arrangements did not succeed" in May 2007, with many pointers to legitimate expectation up to that point that the arrangements did succeed (closed enquiries without amendment and accepted SARs). Yet the retro goes back, from early 2008 to 1987.

The tactic seems to be shout these untruths from as many rooftops as possible and hope some of it sticks. Unfortunately up until now it has, but the truth is coming out. Please go and see your MP if you havent already.

[lucozade]

Thanks Lisa.

This is how HMRC get in trouble. The judicial review had nothing to do with whether the arrangements worked or not. It was to see whether human rights legislation had been broken by the retrospection. And, last I heard this was still underway in Europe.

And as for ' This could not have been the intention when the relevant provisions were negotiated and enacted.' . It' s not for HMRC to say, and moreover Hansards disagrees.

So how do we complain that an HMRC published document is incorrect?

[moira under the stairs]

So how do we complain that an HMRC published document is incorrect?

I'm sure this will be added to the list.

[centurian]

I think of greater concern is that they have mentioned Huitson in this document at all. It seems to add extra weight to the part of government/civil service that has no intention of repealing s58. Overturning an action done by the last government is one thing - but by publishing this document, it adds another, more recent artefact that has to be backtracked upon.

[PlaneSailing]

Just watching BBC Parliament (bored of funerals)
Nigel Mills is talking about the GAAR and is very keen that HMRC not use retrospection. Good for him !

[OnYourBikeGB]

I think of greater concern is that they have mentioned Huitson in this document at all. It seems to add extra weight to the part of government/civil service that has no intention of repealing s58. Overturning an action done by the last government is one thing - but by publishing this document, it adds another, more recent artefact that has to be backtracked upon.

Well, they didn't seem to have a problem removing sections from their guidance before. It doesn't make any difference at all, S58 will not stand or fall based on an HMRC guidance booklet.

[Disgusted of Coventry]

I think of greater concern is that they have mentioned Huitson in this document at all. It seems to add extra weight to the part of government/civil service that has no intention of repealing s58. Overturning an action done by the last government is one thing - but by publishing this document, it adds another, more recent artefact that has to be backtracked upon.

It looks like it's a document for providing examples of schemes which are technically legal, but which may or may not fall within the scope of the GAAR.

If that's right, then HMRC's kind of shooting itself in the foot by even referencing Huitson.