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

[TykeMerc]

I suspect that your case and similar ones spawned by the tardis legislation IS the clear warning they've given to everyone else.

[BrilloPad]

A significant amount of tax is at stake - doubtful. HMRC are never going to collect £200m after so much time. Loads of bankruptcies instead.
There is a history of abuse of this area of the legislation - we were the only ones.
There has been a clear statement of policy in the area - HMRC did nothing for 7+ years. The clear statement was that it was okay.
A clear warning has been given that retrospective action would be taken if abuse of specific legislation continued - on the day the law was corrected it was made retrospective.

So a total lie on all points then.

[Buzby]

keeping up pressure

Graeme Morrice asked Gauke yesterday about the impact on the stability of the UK tax system as a result of the S58 retrospective legislation.

Gauke's reply was "...The protocol makes it clear that fully retrospective legislation will be “wholly exceptional” and limited to circumstances where:

* A significant amount of tax is at stake;
* There is a history of abuse of this area of the legislation;
* There has been a clear statement of policy in the area;
* A clear warning has been given that retrospective action would be taken if abuse of specific legislation continued.
..."

So, where was our 'clear warning', eh? Surely not Padmore

how do we followup on the lack of warning? just found this document www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06361.pdf

to quote:

give a warning in the House of Commons by some recognised method – either by an answer to a Parliamentary Question or by some statement – and to legislate in the subsequent Finance Bill back to the date of that warning” – it should be subject to four conditions:

First, the warning must be precise in form. A mere suggestion that there are vague schemes of tax avoidance that must be counted should not suffice....

Thirdly, if the committee can hit on appropriate legislative provision, the draft clause … should immediately be published in advance of the Finance Bill so that those who are likely to be in the field of fire will have a second clear intimation of what to expect.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Graeme Morrice asked Gauke yesterday about the impact on the stability of the UK tax system as a result of the S58 retrospective legislation.

Gauke's reply was "...The protocol makes it clear that fully retrospective legislation will be “wholly exceptional” and limited to circumstances where:

* A significant amount of tax is at stake;
* There is a history of abuse of this area of the legislation;
* There has been a clear statement of policy in the area;
* A clear warning has been given that retrospective action would be taken if abuse of specific legislation continued.
..."

So, where was our 'clear warning', eh? Surely not Padmore

NTRT's view is:

1. It was tax planning and therefore eligible for Extra Statutory Concession ESC A19

2. It was tax planning and HMRC should have published an Impact Assessment for all to see the effect of the draconian legislation

3. That Gauke has now admitted it was fully “retrospective legislation” and not “clarification”

4. That S58(4) clearly breached the Rees rules

5. It could not possibly be “wholly exceptional” based on the tax at stake and numbers using it when compared to other schemes

[javadude]

* A clear warning has been given that retrospective action would be taken if abuse of specific legislation continued

Reminds me of HHGTTG...

"`...You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them had you? I mean like actually telling anyone or anything.'
`But the plans were on display...'
`On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.'
`That's the display department.'
`With a torch.'
`Ah, well the lights had probably gone.'
`So had the stairs.'
`But look you found the notice didn't you?'
`Yes,' said Arthur, `yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of The Leopard".'"

[swede]

Reminds me of HHGTTG...

"`...You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them had you? I mean like actually telling anyone or anything.'
`But the plans were on display...'
`On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.'
`That's the display department.'
`With a torch.'
`Ah, well the lights had probably gone.'
`So had the stairs.'
`But look you found the notice didn't you?'
`Yes,' said Arthur, `yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of The Leopard".'"

Thats great

[swede]

Reply from Gauke

By the way, I received a reply from Gauke last weekend via my MP which I shall be forwarding onto NTRT.

The gist of his last paragraph where he argues that no precedent had been set by allowing other tax payers to pay a lower amount of tax, is that if I am aware of the names of such people, I should feel free to contact HMRC so that they may investigate them too.

I don't even get annoyed by this any more. If he can live with himself then good luck to him.

[d000hg]

A significant amount of tax is at stake - doubtful. HMRC are never going to collect £200m after so much time. Loads of bankruptcies instead.

Out of interest why do you think the timescale is a factor? If you had the money, you probably have it saved. If you spent it, it was probably gone almost immediately?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Out of interest why do you think the timescale is a factor? If you had the money, you probably have it saved. If you spent it, it was probably gone almost immediately?

This is a bit anecdotal but Montpelier front-line staff reckon the overwhelming majority (90%) haven't got the money.

The last 5 years of recession/austerity haven't helped. Also, the debt will have grown by about 20% since 2008 due to the interest.

[BrilloPad]

Out of interest why do you think the timescale is a factor? If you had the money, you probably have it saved. If you spent it, it was probably gone almost immediately?

This is a bit anecdotal but Montpelier front-line staff reckon the overwhelming majority (90%) haven't got the money.

The last 5 years of recession/austerity haven't helped. Also, the debt will have grown by about 20% since 2008 due to the interest.

+1. And house prices have not been good to those who purchase a house. Contracting tends to be a short term career.

Personally I spaffed the money away in a business deal.