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

[screwthis]

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?

And more importantly...let's find out.

[Rhydd]

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:

Finance Bill Committee coming to an end today | Steve Baker MP

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"

In her comment, Rachel said:

"If the amendment is successful, then it will mean that 3000 wealthy individuals will get away with retaining the £200,000,000+ they have, in my opinion (And the opinion of the judge when this went to the court of appeal .. see reference below), unfairly “stolen” this money from the the majority of people who earn far less but who choose not to greedily exploit loopholes in the law for their own personal gain."

Never mind who she is. How do we convince people with that point of view that the retrospective effect of S58 should be overturned, given that there are lots of people who don't like tax avoiders and lots of newspaper journalists who seem to agree with her?

Putting aside the details of our complicated case, what is our soundbite response?

[Guttersnipe]

Putting aside the details of our complicated case, what is our soundbite response?

People should be judged on the law as it stood. Not what an unelected civil servant may prefer the law to have been.

[screwthis]

In her comment, Rachel said:

"If the amendment is successful, then it will mean that 3000 wealthy individuals will get away with retaining the £200,000,000+ they have, in my opinion (And the opinion of the judge when this went to the court of appeal .. see reference below), unfairly “stolen” this money from the the majority of people who earn far less but who choose not to greedily exploit loopholes in the law for their own personal gain."

Never mind who she is. How do we convince people with that point of view that the retrospective effect of S58 should be overturned, given that there are lots of people who don't like tax avoiders and lots of newspaper journalists who seem to agree with her?

Putting aside the details of our complicated case, what is our soundbite response?

Tax planning within the law as it stood at the time is not stealing.

I can understand action being taken against this type of avoidance but the action should be fair and consistent with action taken against any other types of avoidance (i.e. prospective legislation change).

I still fail to see why K2 is not being treated in a similar fashion.

[TalkingCheese]

In her comment, Rachel said:

"If the amendment is successful, then it will mean that 3000 wealthy individuals will get away with retaining the £200,000,000+ they have, in my opinion (And the opinion of the judge when this went to the court of appeal .. see reference below), unfairly “stolen” this money from the the majority of people who earn far less but who choose not to greedily exploit loopholes in the law for their own personal gain."

Never mind who she is. How do we convince people with that point of view that the retrospective effect of S58 should be overturned, given that there are lots of people who don't like tax avoiders and lots of newspaper journalists who seem to agree with her?

Putting aside the details of our complicated case, what is our soundbite response?

Our case is complicated and we have little chance of convincing people like this as they do not have the appetite to learn about what happened. Cant blame them really unless they have a vested interest in themself, friends, family members, the economy, constituents...

There are quite a few inaccuracies in her comments. She is vastly exaggerating and also making assumptions to make her point. She says that she paid 50% tax. She didnt pay 50% on all her income. This is a vast exaggeration to make her point. She might have paid around 30% overall. Those in the Montpelier arrangement didnt pay out vastly less than that, certainly nowhere near 3.5%.

What people like this dont understand is that this isnt about tax. It is about giving legitimate expectation and then changing the law retrospectively. Doesnt matter what the substance of the law is. It is about the tail wagging the dog, HMRC misleading parliament to pass a law they are not happy with.

... but hey, you know all this :-)

[smalldog]

In her comment, Rachel said:

"If the amendment is successful, then it will mean that 3000 wealthy individuals will get away with retaining the £200,000,000+ they have, in my opinion (And the opinion of the judge when this went to the court of appeal .. see reference below), unfairly “stolen” this money from the the majority of people who earn far less but who choose not to greedily exploit loopholes in the law for their own personal gain."

Never mind who she is. How do we convince people with that point of view that the retrospective effect of S58 should be overturned, given that there are lots of people who don't like tax avoiders and lots of newspaper journalists who seem to agree with her?

Putting aside the details of our complicated case, what is our soundbite response?

This is not "stolen" or it would be evasion. Stealing is criminal, as is evasion. They go hand in hand, avoidance is neither stealing nor criminal.

[screwthis]

Just read Rachel Addison's comment

Not only do i find this type of highly aggressive abuse abhorrent especially given the current economic climate (like the majority of your voters i suspect) but it also affected me directly. My business could not compete with colleagues on similar rates but who could reduce their overheads by almost 50% and as a result i no longer work in the sector.

What a load of rubbish!
No one voluntarily reduced their rates to compete as a result of paying less tax.

Was she not a one man band? If you have the skills you get the contract at the price the contract is advertised for.

What a complete load.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

In her comment, Rachel said:

"If the amendment is successful, then it will mean that 3000 wealthy individuals will get away with..."

Not true.

All the amendment would have done is delay the inevitable because HMRC could litigate based on pre-section 58 legislation and, as Gauke says, the outcome would be exactly the same.

Or have I overlooked something?

[screwthis]

Not true.

All the amendment would have done is delay the inevitable because HMRC could litigate based on pre-section 58 legislation and, as Gauke says, the outcome would be exactly the same.

Or have I overlooked something?

You have overlooked the possibility that Gauke is talking flowers from Amsterdam and that we all know that pre s58 litigation can't be allowed to happen because what we did was obviously legal.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

You have overlooked the possibility that Gauke is talking flowers from Amsterdam and that we all know that pre s58 litigation can't be allowed to happen because what we did was obviously legal.

Silly me.