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

[the great escape]

Great delivery TSBT. It seems to be that our argument remains consistent throughout whilst HMRC seems to be grapling with new straws in every version of the letter, be it electronic or paper form.

I have always thought that the 'UK income is taxable where ever it arises' to be their blanket argument because they can't quiet fathom how we've done it up until the eureka moment where now it's literally possible.

Has that 'taxable anywhere' argument now gone down the pan and we're back to fighting legislation vs legislation instead of legislation vs interpretation?

[stuffed]

HMRC grilling? Is it an angle we can use?

I am not sure if anyone caught this Hodge grilling on HMRC, but would it be an angle we pressure the Treasury/MP's about.
Why is google etc allowed to participate in aggressive tax avoidance, and not even have their setup challenged in the courts. As god for bid we upset Google etc. Yet our scheme which we were told and accepted would be challenged in the courts; suddenly gets the nuclear option of retro. The main criteria for justifying Retrospective was they termed it "aggressive". Are not all these other schemes also aggressive avoidance, and thus should also be handled by Retrospective Law changes. It is only fair if the criteria they use on us, is also then applied to all others. I thought that is how laws and precedences generally work??

[SantaClaus]

Thank you and welcome aboard!

A big thanks to all our new members for signing up. Lamb scored a spectacular own goal there!

[helen7]

So I understand that our next step is the Tax Tribunal. Under what ground can the tax tribunal find in our favour?

Is it relevant that HMRC have 'lied' on occasion? Is it relevant that we did follow the letter of the law and not an interpretation? Is it relevant that we are being asked to pay interest on a retrospective judgement?

[screwthis]

So I understand that our next step is the Tax Tribunal. Under what ground can the tax tribunal find in our favour?

Is it relevant that HMRC have 'lied' on occasion? Is it relevant that we did follow the letter of the law and not an interpretation? Is it relevant that we are being asked to pay interest on a retrospective judgement?

That's a good question.

The problem as I see it is it doesn't matter whether we followed the letter of the law at the time as we are not being judged by the law at the time. The law has now changed to defeat the scheme so under the new law the scheme can't be found to work. Or can it?

[smalldog]

That's a good question.

The problem as I see it is it doesn't matter whether we followed the letter of the law at the time as we are not being judged by the law at the time. The law has now changed to defeat the scheme so under the new law the scheme can't be found to work. Or can it?

What I dont quite understand is.....if the law has been changed retro, meaning essentially the scheme was illegal and breaking the law, then why are we, rather than MP being pursued for the debt? After all it was their ILLEGAL (in the eyes of HMRC) scheme that caused this. For example, if I had a bank account that was being illegally administered by the bank, would I or the bank be held to account? I dont see how MP can get away with this scott free if they essentially sold an illegal scheme since the law changed to make it so.

[Buzby]

Letter from MP

Just received letter back from my MP to say he is writing again to Gauke and will sign EDM 425. good news Friday again.

18 MP have now signed.

[Retro Roger]

Certificate of Tax Deposit scheme - Pros & Cons

Following the recent letter from the HMRC, I'm trying to understand the pros & cons re the certificate of tax deposit scheme.

What are people doing and why?

Thanks,
Matthew

[screwthis]

Following the recent letter from the HMRC, I'm trying to understand the pros & cons re the certificate of tax deposit scheme.

What are people doing and why?

Thanks,
Matthew

I've been thinking the same thing.
The question for me is how long do I expect this to go on for.
If sub 1 year then who really cares about the spread between 3% and the paultry amount you can get in an interest account.
Really just the hassle of doing it puts me off in this case.

If it goes on for another 3 years plus then it is probably worth it.
Also depends on what else you personally can do with the money.

[Retro Roger]

I'm leaning towards putting some cash aside in a instant access savings account.

I am only exposed to one year of foreign income so am perhaps less exposed than others. Presumably the foreign income would be taked at the higher rate income tax level and accrue 3% compound interest (worst case)?

What & when is the next major event in this saga?

Thanks,
Matthew

I've been thinking the same thing.
The question for me is how long do I expect this to go on for.
If sub 1 year then who really cares about the spread between 3% and the paultry amount you can get in an interest account.
Really just the hassle of doing it puts me off in this case.

If it goes on for another 3 years plus then it is probably worth it.
Also depends on what else you personally can do with the money.