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

[Ganimos]

Interesting or what?

HMRC forced to abandon pension case | Economia

[lucozade]

....

Client facing staff at Montp estimate 90% of clients they speak to won't be able to meet their liabilities.

If Montp have this kind of data then why can't it be supplied to us/NTRT/HMRC?

[Buzby]

V. Interesting.

HMRC forced to abandon pension case | Economia

Mr Justice Charles described HMRC’s behaviour as “shameful” and “aggressive”, and dismissed the possibility of a taxpayer being able to determine the QROPS rules from available HMRC guidelines.

when we were in court didn't HMRC say we should have expected retrospective demands because of Padmore in 1987?

[RingStinger]

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.

The Taxaid document makes sober reading. If you cannot pay the demand when requested, you will be referred to HMRC's Debt Management and Banking division. They cannot show discretion over waiving any part of the liability or interest.

The only room for manouvre is in the payment terms. Full payment is occasionally required within 12 months, but more likely a lot sooner than that.

If you go to Court, its unlikely that you'll bend any of the above.

[screwthis]

Yep I was sampled !!

Standing corrected

[DonkeyRhubarb]

If Montp have this kind of data then why can't it be supplied to us/NTRT/HMRC?

It's only anecdotal based on day to day dealings with clients over the past 5 years.

In any case, I'm not convinced anything would sway HMRC and Gauke, no matter how good the data.

Even a MORI poll wouldn't cut any ice with them!

[BrilloPad]

So is our next step to wait for the finance bill next year?

[OnYourBikeGB]

So is our next step to wait for the finance bill next year?

Or a Government ret urding - I mean reshuffle. Of course, we might win at the tribunal. Montpelier have had a long time to prepare. That'd be a moment.

[SantaClaus]

UK debt clock

You got to ask... why is Gauke so concerned about a theoretical £200M when that amount will be raked up as UK debt every 11 hours.

National clock increasing by £5,170 every second

I think the politicians should take a pay cut to help their country out

[Fireship]

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"

It would be nice to see this raised in future parliamentary/committee debates. If this is the case then Gauke needs to explain to us and his peers how he can justify this position based on TN63 and the fact that HMRC were unable to present any valid legal challenge and when they finally did (Baker v Archer-Shee) it was irrelevant!! Even justice Parker during the judicial review instructed HMRC counsel to stop referring to it as it actually undermined their argument!

So Gauke, how exactly would the outcome be the same?