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

[TalkingCheese]

How come our tax planning is described by the likes of Gauke as 'wholly artificial' as opposed to Google's which is only 'highly contrived'?

One question I'd like to hear answered in the forthcoming debate from those opposed to the amendment is are they prepared to use the same retrospective tax measures against the multinationals that they have so vociferously supported to crush 2-3000 small British businesses? And if not, why not?

Also, what is so artificial about a commercial arrangement set up to provide certainty for contractors following the introduction of IR35 ? This was the reason for marketing and entering into the arrangement. Do Google and co. have a similar reason ?

[honeyridges]

Government to repeal the retrospective element of section 58 of the 2008 Finance Act.

This headline caused my heart to miss a beat when I first spotted it - unfortunately it's slightly ahead of the story within...
Amends to BN66: Government to repeal the retrospective element of section 58 of the 2008 Finance Act.* - All Umbrella Companies Are Equal

[Disgusted of Coventry]

Also how can a party (tory) and individuals (Gauke) opposite S58 in 2008 and then defend so vigorously since coming into power. I think I will be tweeting quotes of the debate from 2008 to various Finance Bill Committee members to remind Gauke how he as an individual spoke in 2008.

To be fair to Gauke, might he have skilfully allowed support for the amendment to s58[4] by proposing to retrospectively close down SDLT avoidance schemes?

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...ml#post1755209

If the SDLT amendment is accepted (by virtue of fair warning given), then it gives ample opportunity for committee members to contrast it with s58[4] (no warning given at all!).

I don't have a clue about the machinations of politics, but it seems to me that Gauke has been quite clever in setting up a promising opportunity.

[smalldog]

Big corps and retro tax

Go on Margaret and I assume that Google et al will therefore be hit with retrospective tax demands as we have been:

BBC News - HMRC must fully investigate Google over tax, say MPs

Seriously, how could they reconcile allowing a big corp of prospectively and the little guy retro, how does that balance exaclty?

[Buzby]

Gauke's opportunity

To be fair to Gauke, might he have skilfully allowed support for the amendment to s58[4] by proposing to retrospectively close down SDLT avoidance schemes?

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...ml#post1755209

If the SDLT amendment is accepted (by virtue of fair warning given), then it gives ample opportunity for committee members to contrast it with s58[4] (no warning given at all!).

I don't have a clue about the machinations of politics, but it seems to me that Gauke has been quite clever in setting up a promising opportunity.

that would be good. you would think with the growing number of all party MPs now agreeing to the amendment, Gauke is going to find it tricky to defend S58

[Buzby]

All evidence

will all the FBC have access to our 'latest' data?

A013 Member A013 Key Evidence Key evidence that our arrangement was simply tax planning and that HMRC grossly misled Parliament in 2008 PLEASE NOTE: NOT FOR GENERAL DISTRIBUTION OUTSIDE OF OUR MEMBERSHIP

[Cosmo]

Go on Margaret and I assume that Google et al will therefore be hit with retrospective tax demands as we have been:

BBC News - HMRC must fully investigate Google over tax, say MPs

Seriously, how could they reconcile allowing a big corp of prospectively and the little guy retro, how does that balance exaclty?

Margaret Hodge.....

Hodge - Guy Fawkes' blog

[bollox]

MP for Bromley/Beckenham

I sent my MP the standard e-mail a couple of days ago...

he responded within a few minutes (shock!) saying he would talk to Steve Baker, he then replied later that he'd talked to Steve Baker, and then made some negative comment on our chances..

I then replied saying that the purpose of the mail was to prompt him to show his support for the amendment and try to garner some support from his colleagues on the finance committee (and not really talk to the man who'd raised the amendment in the first place who obviously supports it!!!)

radio silence since then..

He's seems decent enough but has never been on side - has always forwarded on letters to Gauke though (least he could do i suppose)

I'll hang fire and badger him again - had a bit of an e-mail spat with him a couple of months ago where he talked about his credibility being damaged by raising this with Mr Gauke again - he obviously thinks i'm a nut job

p.s. I did attach some of Mr Gaukes quotes from the 2008 debate and asked him to get Mr Gauke to explain his volte-face since coming to power so perhaps thats p@ssed him off

ahh well...

[StellaFan]

Got a call from my MP's office and they informed me that she is already working with NTRT

[RingStinger]

I too have received a response from my MP, a letter from John Redwood (Con, Wokingham) by return of post, reaffirning his support for us and stating that he will lobby his colleagues to support the amendment.