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

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Haven't received letter yet but could someone post the wording of this 'literal' part up on the forum. Very intersted to see it . Thanks

"The scheme you used was an attempt to abuse the UK/lsle of Man Double Taxation
Arrangements (DTA) in order to obtain 'double relief' and to succeed requires a very literal
interpretation of that agreement."

[travellingknob]

I suspect that's it and the rest is just filler.

They are probably covering their arses if it ends in lots of forced house sales, bankruptcies or worse.

Do let us know how they reply to your email.

Will do but as the letter shows most of them out of office soon, I expect it will be their normal several weeks before a reply

[eek]

"The scheme you used was an attempt to abuse the UK/lsle of Man Double Taxation
Arrangements (DTA) in order to obtain 'double relief' and to succeed requires taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or exaggeration interpretation of that agreement."

Just updated it with the definition of literal. Used correctly that letter is dynamite...

[OnYourBikeGB]

Just updated it with the definition of literal. Used correctly that letter is dynamite...

It's probably worth pointing out to Lamb that there can only be a literal and a non-literal interpretation. Saying 'very literal' is like saying 'the maximum top speed'. So we can ignore the word 'very'. In short, in his own words, we followed the letter of the law. Therefore it was not clarification, it was making the clearly legal into illegal retrospectively. That's the very most literal meaning of that mail shot.

[helen7]

"The scheme you used was an attempt to abuse the UK/lsle of Man Double Taxation
Arrangements (DTA) in order to obtain 'double relief' and to succeed requires a very literal
interpretation of that agreement."

So if I understand correctly. When reading Tax law; we should not read what it actually says...we should instead try to interpret it to have a completely different meaning to what is written in order to suit whatever outcome that is desired.

That sounds like the Bible.

[the great escape]

"The scheme you used was an attempt to abuse the UK/lsle of Man Double Taxation
Arrangements (DTA) in order to obtain 'double relief' and to succeed requires a very literal
interpretation of that agreement."

Thanks DR. So comparing a snippet from the last email shot with extract from letter...

> It is HMRC’s clear view that the wholly artificial scheme you used failed in its purpose...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.

>> ...in order to obtain 'double relief' and to succeed requires a very literal interpretation of that agreement.

So we've progressed from 'doesn't work at all' to 'works but only if...'. Wonder what's next.

[travellingknob]

So if I understand correctly. When reading Tax law; we should not read what it actually says...we should instead try to interpret it to have a completely different meaning to what is written in order to suit whatever outcome that is desired.

That sounds like the Bible.

no, it sounds like HMRC

[travellingknob]

Thanks DR. So comparing a snippet from the last email shot with extract from letter...

> It is HMRC’s clear view that the wholly artificial scheme you used failed in its purpose...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.

>> ...in order to obtain 'double relief' and to succeed requires a very literal interpretation of that agreement.

So we've progressed from 'doesn't work at all' to 'works but only if...'. Wonder what's next.

I think what they mean is that social feeling decides how you should interpret the law and you shouldn't take anything at all literally. So social feeling allowed them to intrepret it one way in their 2002 technical exchange but by 2008 they got bonuses to motivate them and social feeling had changed so it allowed them to interpret it in a completely different way. Everyone clear now ?

[PlaneSailing]

Hector drops the ball

"The scheme you used was an attempt to abuse the UK/lsle of Man Double Taxation
Arrangements (DTA) in order to obtain 'double relief' and to succeed requires a very literal
interpretation of that agreement."

So this, and the technical note both say there are circumstances in which the scheme works. This latest revelation requires a literal interpretation of the law, ('very literal', whatever that means).

I'm confused as to how all this fits in with the claim in court that HMRC has said all along said that the planning didn't work. They don't seem too sure, even now.

[the great escape]

The back door

So this, and the technical note both say there are circumstances in which the scheme works. This latest revelation requires a literal interpretation of the law, ('very literal', whatever that means).

I'm confused as to how all this fits in with the claim in court that HMRC has said all along said that the planning didn't work. They don't seem too sure, even now.

This 'very literal' statement is obviously now a back door.

The gathering public interest and the ministerial support that NTRT's garnished en-route to the adjudicator surely must have some Hectorians wondering 'we'll where do I stand on this one'. Nobody wants to be party to a cover up. And a 'get out of jail' with 'we'll of course if you took the law very literally you could succeed in...'
surely paints a poor light on your professional standing. After all, you're responsible for interpreting tax law not flipping burgers.

Obviously they'll throw the 'very literal' bone to the FTT and hope they'll take it.

Let's hope they throw it back with 'we'll what other interpretations of the law are there?'