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

[reckless]

Did everyone leave the country last weekend?

Have emigrated to Russia, where the rule of law is by comparison to the UK, much more certain. May move on to Zimbawe when the weather gets a bit colder.

[Guttersnipe]

A new letter from David Gauke MP. Much more thorough, signed by the man himself and with reference to Padmore. Doesn't look like the standard trotting out of the HMRC line.

I believe we have his attention :-).

Forwarding to NTRT.

[SantaClaus]

Have emigrated to Russia, where the rule of law is by comparison to the UK, much more certain. May move on to Zimbawe when the weather gets a bit colder.

I hear Panama has a more predictable tax regime these days.

[smalldog]

Adam afriyie

Hey Windsor locals, Adam is in town centre today! I'm queued and got to speak to him. He supports our cause and said they were discussing it in the westminster tea room this week. Any other locals get into town if u can. Definitely worth few mins, I won't disclose all on here but will mail White House with what he suggested.

[Buzby]

Email from HMRC

Just received a reply from the email I sent to Gauke 17th June from HMRC.

I will forward to NTRT

few quotes

Nor is it correct to say that the scheme was fully disclosed. The level
of disclosure varied enormously between the different scheme promoters,
but generally it was inadequate.

I understand that the material given to you by the promoter selling this
wholly artificial tax avoidance scheme advised that it was tax
avoidance, that HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) was likely to challenge your
use of the scheme, and no guarantee could be given that the scheme would
work. Individuals who choose to use artificial tax avoidance schemes
take the risk that they will not work, and must be prepared to accept
the consequences.

I do not think I had any material which said that.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Gauke letters

If you receive anything from Gauke or HMRC can you forward it on to - info @ notoretrotax.org.uk

They aren't using a single template so we need to examine each letter very carefully.

Thanks
DR

[TAF4]

This is an interesting adjustment to the spin:

Nor is it correct to say that the scheme was fully disclosed. The level
of disclosure varied enormously between the different scheme promoters,
but generally it was inadequate.

That of course is nonsense - TN63 describes the scheme in full detail including why the scheme apparently worked.

Individuals who choose to use artificial tax avoidance schemes
take the risk that they will not work, and must be prepared to accept
the consequences.

This is absolutely correct but the responsibility lies with HMRC to demonstrate that this scheme did not work. I continue to accept the risk that if this scheme didn't work then I will accept the consequences. Then along came Hector's time machine...........

[BrilloPad]

This is absolutely correct but the responsibility lies with HMRC to demonstrate that this scheme did not work. I continue to accept the risk that if this scheme didn't work then I will accept the consequences. Then along came Hector's time machine...........

+1. But I have always found it astonishing that HMRC claim we would lose with or without retrospection. If they did not need retrospection then why bother with it?

[Buzby]

+1. But I have always found it astonishing that HMRC claim we would lose with or without retrospection. If they did not need retrospection then why bother with it?

I would guess HMRC told parliament in 2008 that because this was a 'clarification' it made sense to them to make it retrospective. Padmore was retrospective (even through it didn't leave anyone with unexpected tax bills)

now HMRC are telling Gauke they did it retrospectively because they thought it would be quicker than litigating and the outcome would be the same

HMRC are also telling Gauke that if they remove the retrospective element of S58 it would not be fair to the vast majority of people who do not attempt to avoid tax

not sure how all these can be true?

[BrilloPad]

I would guess HMRC told parliament in 2008 that because this was a 'clarification' it made sense to them to make it retrospective. Padmore was retrospective (even through it didn't leave anyone with unexpected tax bills)

now HMRC are telling Gauke they did it retrospectively because they thought it would be quicker than litigating and the outcome would be the same

HMRC are also telling Gauke that if they remove the retrospective element of S58 it would not be fair to the vast majority of people who do not attempt to avoid tax
not sure how all these can be true?

And I thought it was every taxpayer's duty to avoid tax? And that most of them did? And I think alot of people evade tax - builders paid cash in hand etcetc.

One day the truth will come out - HMRC wanted retrospection to cover their failings of not closing the scheme earlier. And lied to parliament about the real reason.