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

[TAF4]

"........Civil serpents"

Oh yes - I like that.

[turnover]

Gauke repeated the untruth that S58 was "clarification". We know that it wasn't - in the Huitson judgement, the judge stated "On 21 July 2008 s58 of the 2008 Act came into force. It amended, with retrospective effect, the existing legislation in s.858 of the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005."

Two points.

1) The Huitson judgement said that the government has the power to enact legislation retrospectively. I am not sure that it went on to say that having changed a law retrospectively that it had the right to charge interest on tax that wasn't originally payable.

2) During the expenses scandal, many MPs said that they believed that they had been acting correctly within the rules as they stood in the past. When they repaid expenses that were subsequently deemed improper, I don't think that they paid interest on the historic over-claim.

Any attempt to charge s58 victims interest on tax that was made payable only retrospectively is a shameful abuse of power.

Out of interest - if the interest on tax was taken away roughly what proportion of people would then be able to pay their liabilities?

[smalldog]

Out of interest - if the interest on tax was taken away roughly what proportion of people would then be able to pay their liabilities?

my guess, a SH*T load more without being forced into bankruptcy!

I assume if nothing else this point would be argued at the FTT, i.e. the charging of punitive interest on a restrospective measure? IF it isnt argued there at what point do we get to argue this point, amongst other things.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

While we are on the subject of interest

Below are up to date estimates of the interest accrued, by tax year.

2001/2.......58%
2002/3.......52%
2003/4.......46%
2004/5.......38%
2005/6.......32%
2006/7.......24%
2007/8.......16%

Eg. if your tax/nic liability for 2001/2 was £30,000, then the accrued interest on top would be approx £17,400

[turnover]

Below are up to date estimates of the interest accrued, by tax year.

2001/2.......58%
2002/3.......52%
2003/4.......46%
2004/5.......38%
2005/6.......32%
2006/7.......24%
2007/8.......16%

Eg. if your tax/nic liability for 2001/2 was £30,000, then the accrued interest on top would be approx £17,400

Thanks DR - If this was to go to court would you feel hopeful you could argue the point that the interest accrued is mainly due to HMRC's lack of urgency in moving proceedings forward? Why should you suffer for HMRC resourcing issues leading to no movement?

Apologies in advance - I dont know the detail around all of BN66 so if factually incorrect apologies.

[lucozade]

Who's Rachel Addison?

Is this a made up Government person by any chance? Who else would really want to do this!

See the comments at the bottom of the link.

The Finance Bill 2013 – How to promote special interest lobbying | Steve Baker MP

More comments founds here:

http://www.stevebaker.info/2013/06/f...oday/#comments

I quote:

"Rachel Addison says:

20 June 2013 at 12:11 pm

Steve,

Can you repeat in English?

Does this mean you are for or against the repeal of the retrospective aspect of S58?

Does this mean you are happy to see 3,000 wealthy individuals get away with paying tax at 3.5% over many years?

Confused"

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Thanks DR - If this was to go to court would you feel hopeful you could argue the point that the interest accrued is mainly due to HMRC's lack of urgency in moving proceedings forward? Why should you suffer for HMRC resourcing issues leading to no movement?

Apologies in advance - I dont know the detail around all of BN66 so if factually incorrect apologies.

I'm afraid it doesn't really work like that. Interest is not at the discretion of a court.

[screwthis]

With a population of 2,200 and a sample size of 150, you can be 95% confident that the results have a margin of error of 8%, assuming that the sample is a random selection.

That means that if 40% of victims said that they would have to sell their homes then you can be 95% certain that the proportion who will have to sell their homes is between 32% and 48%.

Sample Size Calculator - Confidence Level, Confidence Interval, Sample Size, Population Size, Relevant Population - Creative Research Systems

Provided the 150 sample is picked at random.

Not sure if CanPayButWouldRatherNot would have included himself in the sample??

[TalkingCheese]

...Not sure if CanPayButWouldRatherNot would have included himself in the sample??

You may be surprised. Which is why Gaukes complete dismissal of the survey, especially when HMRC dont offer anything is outrageous.

[CanPayButWouldRatherNot]

Provided the 150 sample is picked at random.

Not sure if CanPayButWouldRatherNot would have included himself in the sample??

Yep I was sampled !!