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

[screwthis]

I suspect I've received the same reply. This paragraph in particular struck me as particularly weak:

A matter that is open to doubt cannot have been decided in your favour. It is therefore correct to say that there is no basis in fact for the assertion that the tax avoidance scheme complied with the law.

Are they retrospectively changing the English language now?
How can it not be possible for a matter open to doubt to be decided in the favour of either side?

Surely it must be "beyond doubt", words used in Section58, that we were not complying with the law in order for there to be no basis for our assertion.

This is both horrible and surreal. They can basically say anything.
Big guy (corporate/govt.) trumps little guy. they might as well have written half of Humpty Dumpty down on the page and finished by saying therefore it is not possible the tax arrangements could have worked.

[smalldog]

Are they retrospectively changing the English language now?
How can it not be possible for a matter open to doubt to be decided in the favour of either side?

Surely it must be "beyond doubt", words used in Section58, that we were not complying with the law in order for there to be no basis for our assertion.

This is both horrible and surreal. They can basically say anything.
Big guy (corporate/govt.) trumps little guy. they might as well have written half of Humpty Dumpty down on the page and finished by saying therefore it is not possible the tax arrangements could have worked.

Does make you wonder if they bother actually reading anything they write down. Total Cobblers!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Breaking news

NTRT have submitted a class complaint to the Adjudicator* about HMRC conduct on behalf of all NTRT members.

Newsletter with full update coming out next week.

* the Adjudicator has extensive powers to scrutinize HMRC conduct and this is the penultimate step in the complaints process before it could be referred to the Parliamentary Ombudsman

[the great escape]

I have just received a second response to the latest NTRT toolkit letter from one of Gauke's stooges at Her Majesty's Robbers and Crooks. They defended their position by twisting the words of the NTRT letter to say that 'I agreed with the court's claim the scheme had doubtful efficacy!' They then go on to say that because the promoter did not guarantee the scheme, I should have known it had doubtful efficacy! Finally they refute the claim of perjury because I did not submit evidence. Well I'm sure there will be no shortage of evidence when it comes to the appropriate time.

If this is the best they can do, then I think we have them on the ropes. I get the feeling that the accusation of perjury may be now worrying a few Hectors.

I have forwarded the reply to Whitehouse.

I have also asked my MP to sign the Early Day Motion.

Chins up!
K.B.O.

Never got a reply to my first salvo. Took NTRT's advice and fired if off again. This time got the std dribble in reply (wasn't even headed or dated). Fired one back and got the same 2nd response as above.

A matter that is open to doubt cannot have been decided in your favour - then how HMRC can it be decided in yours?
no evidence either of perjury, or to support your assertion - well even DG disagrees with you on that one
can only repeat that, in general, users of this tax avoidance scheme made inadequate disclosure of their participation in the scheme - yes, but then you've completely ignored all the points raised in the mail.

There's nothing of substance in this reply. Who is writing this tripe?

[SantaClaus]

Never got a reply to my first salvo. Took NTRT's advice and fired if off again. This time got the std dribble in reply (wasn't even headed or dated). Fired one back and got the same 2nd response as above.

A matter that is open to doubt cannot have been decided in your favour - then how HMRC can it be decided in yours?
no evidence either of perjury, or to support your assertion - well even DG disagrees with you on that one
can only repeat that, in general, users of this tax avoidance scheme made inadequate disclosure of their participation in the scheme - yes, but then you've completely ignored all the points raised in the mail.

There's nothing of substance in this reply. Who is writing this tripe?

Very overpaid civil servants!

[smalldog]

Very overpaid civil servants!

Ya gotta remember they don't pay enough to get the cream, these people couldn't make it in competitive and better paid private sector. Lets be honest you wouldn't work for hmrc by choice!

[Buzby]

class complaint

NTRT have submitted a class complaint to the Adjudicator* about HMRC conduct on behalf of all NTRT members.

Newsletter with full update coming out next week.

* the Adjudicator has extensive powers to scrutinize HMRC conduct and this is the penultimate step in the complaints process before it could be referred to the Parliamentary Ombudsman

thanks for the update.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/leaflets/ao1.pdf

We can look at complaints about:
• mistakes
• unreasonable delays
• poor or misleading advice
• inappropriate staff behaviour
• the use of discretion.

what about misleading Parliament?

[freeranger]

Just had a reply to my request for information under the DPA - it took them 3 weeks to write back and say:

"As you will appreciate, HM Revenue and Customs holds information on many different systems, some relating to direct tax, some relating to indirect tax. HMRC is not obliged to search all the information we hold in order to respond to a request under the DPA. Your request is extensive and before we can respond, it would be helpful if you could provide clarification as to which area of HMRC you have had contact with or you think is likely to hold information you wish us to disclose"

So basically you can ask for information but we don't have to provide it, and please tell us what information you think we might have so we can send it to you....ummm....if I knew what you knew, I wouldn't have to ask for it....durrr!

[reckless]

MP's support

I received written confirmation today that my MP has signed the early day amendment - unstinting support from Anne as usual. If only there were more MP's with morals, we wouldn't be in this mess!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Further breaking news

Former clients of PwC, affected by S58, had a hearing at the First Tier Tax tribunal yesterday. HMRC had moved to strike out their appeal and refuse the postponement of payment of tax.

At the hearing, HMRC backed off. They withdrew their objection to postponement and confined the strike-out to just one aspect of the appeal (a point of EU law), agreeing that the rest should be heard at a full hearing. The judge will hand down a decision on the EU law point in due course.

This is very good news for the taxpayers concerned, who get to fight another day, and also for the rest of us since we're all in this together.