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

[screwthis]

I have been thinking about the debate last week and some of what Gauke said:



Was the MTM scheme any more aggressive than any other scheme? I would have thought that most scheme follow a similar model, I know the MTM loan scheme was exactly the same.



the 3.5% and .1% rates depend on how much is put through the scheme. if you had a annual salary of around £60K your tax rate would be higher. does it mean it OK to use retrospective changes only if effective rate is below 4%?




was section 58 considered very carefully in 2008?
why was the IOM double taxation scheme 'wholly exceptional'?

Google, Amazon and Starbucks face questions on tax avoidance from MPs | Technology | guardian.co.uk

Charlie Elphicke MP told the Commons on 5 November that Amazon had paid an effective UK tax rate of 2.5% on 2011 earnings of £309bn. Google paid 0.4% on £2.5bn. Starbucks paid nothing, though its UK earnings were £365m.

[TAF4]

in line with the protocol we have introduced.

Wasn't the protocol that Gauke is referring to introduced some time after S58(4)??

[screwthis]

Also Gauke mentioned the size of the tax at stake as one of the criteria to allowing retrospection.
£200m (as if) in our case.

Taxing Google just 10% would yield a larger (and far more retrievable) sum.

[smalldog]

Also Gauke mentioned the size of the tax at stake as one of the criteria to allowing retrospection.
£200m (as if) in our case.

Taxing Google just 10% would yield a larger (and far more retrievable) sum.

I dont get qhere this £200m figure comes from, question I would ask Gauke is whether this is actually the real collectible amount

[DonkeyRhubarb]

They speak with forked tongue

The thing you have to bear in mind is that everything Gauke/HMRC say now is designed to justify S58 after the fact.

For example, apparently we would have lost in court anyway so bankruptcy would have been the outcome with or without S58.

"HMRC’s clear view is that the change introduced by section 58 was a clarification and that, although potentially more protracted and costly, litigation on the basis of the pre-section 58 legislation would ultimately show that the scheme failed. Whichever legislative route is involved, the tax avoided and the amount outstanding would be the same"

[Buzby]

Some calculations

I dont get qhere this £200m figure comes from, question I would ask Gauke is whether this is actually the real collectible amount

absolutely, if the £200m is a key fact in the use of retrospective change then surely someone should verify the figure. In my example if my family home is repossessed before bankruptcy costs they would still only hope to get around 50% of my current debt

they should also take into account the loss of future tax. Similar to many here I work in financial services and now run as a Ltd Company registered for VAT. Quick calculation of my VAT, corporation tax, PAYE and NI is around £40K per year. If only 500 of the 3,000 people affected by S58 are also looking at bankruptcy and the average tax now being paid is £40k per year then future loss of tax would be £20m per year.

[screwthis]

I dont get qhere this £200m figure comes from, question I would ask Gauke is whether this is actually the real collectible amount

That question was asked by the shadow Exchequer Secretary.
Guake ignored it.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

HMRC/Gauke think we're swinging the lead. They reckon the survey of 150 is unrepresentative.

I doubt there's anything we can say to convince them otherwise.

[smalldog]

HMRC/Gauke think we're swinging the lead. They reckon the survey of 150 is unrepresentative.

I doubt there's anything we can say to convince them otherwise.

im surprised nobody laughed out loud when Gauke said HMRC will consider real hardship cases. what by giving and extra week to pay up!!

[Ninja]

Wasn't the protocol that Gauke is referring to introduced some time after S58(4)??

But that doesn't matter, because you have forgotten that they are Time Lords and can apply the protocol retrospectively, of course.

Have you learned nothing!