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

[lucozade]

Spoke to HMRC and they advised they couldn't handle the refund and it would have to be referred to the "back office" who will be in touch within 5 days.

I asked if there was a problem and she didn't want to say. WTF.

Moral of the story - do not setup direct debits and then forget about them.

[honeyridges]

Phones rip-off

Good luck to anyone who tries to call HMRC: PM Concern On '£56m Government Calls Rip-Off'

"HM Revenue and Customs answered only 16% of calls made to its tax credit helpline on July 31, the deadline day for notifying change of circumstances."

Another reason to write a letter - a stamp is a lot less expensive. Also, in my experience letters tend to get to the right place/people, and because they have time to consider their response you're more likely to receive a more accurate reply.

Some call centre temp having to think on the fly with only HMRC IT "supporting" them? No wonder 1) they daren't answer the phone, 2) when they do they can't answer your query, and 3) staff are abandoning ship in droves. It must be a thankless job.

[lucozade]

You just couldn't make this rubbish up!

I received a call from a lovely lady from HMRC advising me that the reason they cannot process the refund is because I have a regular payment setup via Direct Debit. This is effectively stopping the system from sending a refund. Do the maths:

Amount overpaid by: £3500
Refund requested: £3000

Computer says NO as there is another payment coming into the account in the next month. WTF.

So to cure the problem I need to suspend or cancel the direct debit and then wait 30 days before the "system" will issue a refund.

Luckily I don't actually need the funds but if I did I'd be climbing the walls with this shambles.

How on earth will these people ever be able to chase up for our legally operated scheme. FFS.

[elpinar]

well it made me laugh .... just got this in my inbox

Hi All,

We have a project taking place on Monday 18th November (evening groups near Chancery Lane). Research for 90 mins paying £55.

This research is just to look at some letters that HMRC are considering sending out to ‘Joe Public’ and would like peoples thoughts on wording prior sending.

We are looking for people who are aged 50-70 who pay some form of income tax (this can be from wages, saving or investments) or both.

We need people who are either PAYE or who fill out a self-assessment tax form (or both).

If interested please email us back with the following info:-

1. Your name
2. Your contact numbers
3. Your age
4. Do you complete a self-assessment form, are you PAYE (and do not complete a self- assessment form) or do both (please list which one).
5. Do you have a spouse or cohabitating partner or are you single?
6. Do you have any living parents?
7. Your occupation
8. Your partners occupation (if applicable)

[smalldog]

Hi All,

We have a project taking place on Monday 18th November (evening groups near Chancery Lane). Research for 90 mins paying £55.

This research is just to look at some letters that HMRC are considering sending out to ‘Joe Public’ and would like peoples thoughts on wording prior sending.

We are looking for people who are aged 50-70 who pay some form of income tax (this can be from wages, saving or investments) or both.

We need people who are either PAYE or who fill out a self-assessment tax form (or both).

If interested please email us back with the following info:-

1. Your name
2. Your contact numbers
3. Your age
4. Do you complete a self-assessment form, are you PAYE (and do not complete a self- assessment form) or do both (please list which one).
5. Do you have a spouse or cohabitating partner or are you single?
6. Do you have any living parents?
7. Your occupation
8. Your partners occupation (if applicable)

you know what, i think they are actually doing the right thing in this case, for once! Their attitude and overly threatening communication style is appalling. Whenever you get a letter from them its never "were sure there is just some kind of oversight", its always, you have FAILED, or been NEGLIGENT etc...They need to soften up and be hated a bit less, doesnt mean they will get less revenues. they may actually get more tax receipts as people will be less intimidated. that radio ad of a bloke saying "were coming for you" with foot steps is the most offensive thing i think ive ever heard on radio. you would never guess this is from a government department!

[Ninja]

More: 'Yesterday in Parliament'

Ian Murray (Edinburgh South, Labour)
"To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate his Department has made of the number of taxpayers affected by the retrospective tax changes introduced in section 58(4) of the Finance Act 2008."
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove, Conservative)
"UK residents are taxable on their worldwide income wherever it arises—including situations where it arises by way of foreign partnerships. Section 58 of Finance Act 2008 was enacted to help put that beyond doubt and in so doing, made clear that a wholly artificial tax avoidance scheme involving a foreign partnership comprised of foreign trustees did not work. As section 58 retrospectively clarified existing legislation, its introduction had no effect on any taxpayer’s tax position. HMRC has currently identified around 2,000 individuals who used the avoidance scheme or one of its variants and whose tax returns are currently under inquiry."
Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 12 November 2013, c568W)

Looks like Javid is trotting out the same old cr*p without answering Ian Murray's question

[reckless]

Ad nauseam

Ian Murray (Edinburgh South, Labour)
"To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer and whose tax returns are currently under inquiry."............
Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 12 November 2013, c568W)

Looks like Javid is trotting out the same old cr*p without answering Ian Murray's question

This really feels like Groundhog day....

1) Any legislation that needs to be clarified was therefore by implication poorly written and misleading in the first place.......

2) Yes, agreed that UK citizens are liable to tax, wherever the income is earned. It just so happens that in the I.O.M. the relevant tax is chargeable at 0%; a bit like the tax rate on an ISA

The honourable member is therefore either stupid or a liar, or most probably both.

[PlaneSailing]

Daft

"As section 58 retrospectively clarified existing legislation, its introduction had no effect on any taxpayer’s tax position"

I can't see how this sentence makes any sense. If there was no effect, then why don't we go to the FTT with the original, pre-clarified wording? Like we should have done in 2008.

[screwthis]

"As section 58 retrospectively clarified existing legislation, its introduction had no effect on any taxpayer’s tax position"

I can't see how this sentence makes any sense. If there was no effect, then why don't we go to the FTT with the original, pre-clarified wording? Like we should have done in 2008.

Exactly. Why would they even bother passing legislation if it truely had "no effect" on anyone?

[obitoo]

Exactly. Why would they even bother passing legislation if it truely had "no effect" on anyone?

And that's exactly the question that should have been asked next in parliament. Sadly, I don't think it ever will