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

[Buzby]

and I hope whoever is ultimately being protected will be flushed as an outcome of that process. Be interesting to see who is so important as to put thousands of families at risk of being made bankrupt! There seems to be a big cover up going on high up in HMRC.

As I see it someone in HMRC really disliked MP, or to be personal Watkin and went out of their way to bring him and MP down. They sacrified the rule book in doing so as DR has pointed out. I sincerely hope it comes back to bite em, and hard! This vendetta and personal crusade has some considerable collateral damage, i.e. US!!!

A 2005 internal HMRC study concluded that 50% of the big four's tax fees came from "commercial tax planning" and "artificial avoidance schemes", suggesting they bring in around £1bn a year in total

MP and Watkins contributions to tax avoidance is a very small percentage of the 'big four', so as above - someone in HMRC seems to have disproportionately targeted MP.

[TAF4]

..............would it just be a slap on the wrist for HMRC and nothing changes for us?

Short answer - probably.

On the other hand:
Misfeasance in public office
is worth a read.

Particularly the bit that says
In most cases, the essentials to bring an action of misfeasance in public office are that the office-holder acted illegally, knew he was doing so, and knew or should reasonably have known that third parties would suffer loss as a result.

Since this was HMRC misleading Parliament we are getting very close to Treason IMHO.

Hi Mr B.

[BrilloPad]

All their dirty linen will eventually be washed in public.

I expect by then I will be bankrupt.

[adubya]

Loving the two HMRC stooges on that blog

[foolishboy]

All their dirty linen will eventually be washed in public.

Assuming someone hasnt already given the order to conceal the evidence at all costs. After all this is the UK government and its civil servants we are talking about.

Shame that the ECHR wont allow the death penalty for treason nowadays, not that that matters, nobody has been tried for treason in the UK since Lord HawHaw, despite numerous examples of where its clearly been applicable.

[redkieran]

Rachel Addison?

From one post:
I was fortunate enough to work as an IT contractor, making between £100,000 adn £200,000 a year. I paid around 50% in taxes though PAYE and NI.

And another:
On another note, my husband worked alongside some of these people and earned a similar income. He took IR35 on the chin and ended up paying a painful amount of tax and NI (approaching 60%).

Then finally:
The rest of us who don’t earn anywhere near the kind of income that IT contractors, Doctors and property developers earn have been subsidizing you for years.

That doesn't seem a consistent argument to me.

[redkieran]

Dividends

I presume that Rachel and her husband didn't pay herself in dividends pre-IR35, as that would be lowering their tax contributions and would be morally indefensible.

[PlaneSailing]

Turning around

So according to Gauke, HMRC can only collect ' tax due under law'.

Not according to his speech last week. HMRC can change the law retrospectively if they see fit. Whatever they think, under no published criteria, is wholly exceptional.

I guess one criterium would be 'is not google/amazon/large company' .

How can the different tax treatment be justified? This is pure and simple prejudice. One rule for multinationals, another one for small business.

Treasury minister hints at Amazon and Google tax action | Technology | The Guardian

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Rachel has been posting comments on other sites eg.

Tax Research UK » Labour welcomes the GAAR – but says it has to be reviewed in two years because there are so many flaws within it
Labour put down tax amendment that would have given Tories tax cut they want – which Lib Dems stopped

[TAF4]

Rachel has been posting comments on other sites eg.

In one of those sites Rachel says:
"I personally believe that in this case retrospection is completely justified as a deterrent to future loophole abuse through highly artificial schemes. Schemes which trample all over the spirit of the law and only serve to benefit a greedy few at the detriment to the rest of us."

This is an interesting perspective. If this implementation of retrospective clarification is allowed to stand it creates a precedent for future similar actions whenever Hector seeks to 'clarify' the law to what he wishes it to be. It provides a nuclear deterrant to be used by Hector and the Treasury anytime the 'little people' get above themselves.

It is no longer about recovery of £200m but retaining the weapon.