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

[smalldog]

The problem with our case is that 99.99% of the population, including politicians, believe the end result was right, namely that we should have paid UK taxes on the income from the trust.

The only debate is over the means employed (retro legislation). Many MPs and legal professionals believe retro is wrong in principle and undermines the rule of law.

Unfortunately, such "esoteric" arguments wouldn't cut much ice with the general public who will see this in simple black and white terms. That's why the press will always treat it as a story about "tax dodgers".

I agree, and they would no doubt try and start to blur the lines between avoidance and evasion to lump us into the same class as the offshore tax evaders, just for a bit more impact and the GP would be none the wiser.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I agree, and they would no doubt try and start to blur the lines between avoidance and evasion to lump us into the same class as the offshore tax evaders, just for a bit more impact and the GP would be none the wiser.

Even if someone took their own life over it, the press would probably report it as self-inflicted. Paying the ultimate price wouldn't elicit much sympathy from the GP.

Sad but true.

[ASB]

The problem with our case is that 99.99% of the population, including politicians, believe the end result was right, namely that we should have paid UK taxes on the income from the trust.

The only debate is over the means employed (retro legislation). Many MPs and legal professionals believe retro is wrong in principle and undermines the rule of law.

Unfortunately, such "esoteric" arguments wouldn't cut much ice with the general public who will see this in simple black and white terms. That's why the press will always treat it as a story about "tax dodgers".

Nail and head there. End justifies the means will be a common thread. Though there will be little thought of what it could lead too. For example decreeing that all income from a service company (whatever one of those may be) should be subject to NI and back dating it a few years wouldn't raise much of an issue by those unaffected. They'd probably see it as "only fair".

Personally I believe that the income should have been taxable; and I can see some argument for backdating to certain parliamentary announcements (or rather making it effective as of those dates). I also happen to believe that the schemes worked. Also that they should, if there is argument about that, be tested against those rules.

Our entire legal framework is based upon certainty of action, and determination of those actions on the law that was used by individuals to make their decisions as to action.

Changing those rules retrospectively means one thing, and one thing only. There are no rules any more for anything.

[screwthis]

Nail and head there. End justifies the means will be a common thread. Though there will be little thought of what it could lead too. For example decreeing that all income from a service company (whatever one of those may be) should be subject to NI and back dating it a few years wouldn't raise much of an issue by those unaffected. They'd probably see it as "only fair".

Personally I believe that the income should have been taxable; and I can see some argument for backdating to certain parliamentary announcements (or rather making it effective as of those dates). I also happen to believe that the schemes worked. Also that they should, if there is argument about that, be tested against those rules.

Our entire legal framework is based upon certainty of action, and determination of those actions on the law that was used by individuals to make their decisions as to action.

Changing those rules retrospectively means one thing, and one thing only. There are no rules any more for anything.

This injustice is that we are being judged on morality and not legality.

Morality is subjective, personal and heavily infulenced by the sentiement of the day.

The law has to be the law, otherwise what are we govened by?

[BrilloPad]

This injustice is that we are being judged on morality and not legality.

Morality is subjective, personal and heavily infulenced by the sentiement of the day.

The law has to be the law, otherwise what are we govened by?

The police used to be there to uphold the law. Now they think they are the law.

These days we are gioverned by spin. The mob is kept in control via flat screen tv and cheap booze.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Morality is subjective, personal and heavily infulenced by the sentiement of the day.

We are not even being judged by the sentiment at the time. The moral climate today is a lot different than it was over a decade ago when I used the scheme (2001-3).

[Alba]

Tax avoiders to pay up while HMRC investigates schemes

The problem with our case is that 99.99% of the population, including politicians, believe the end result was right, namely that we should have paid UK taxes on the income from the trust.

The only debate is over the means employed (retro legislation). Many MPs and legal professionals believe retro is wrong in principle and undermines the rule of law.

Unfortunately, such "esoteric" arguments wouldn't cut much ice with the general public who will see this in simple black and white terms. That's why the press will always treat it as a story about "tax dodgers".

PERHAPS WE SHOULD BE PAYING ATTENTION TO WHAT IS GOING ON BEHIND THE SCENES:

Home News Personal tax Tax avoiders to pay up while HMRC investigates schemes
by Calum Fuller

More from this author
27 Jan 2014

0 Comments inShare.6 USERS of tax avoidance schemes are to be compelled to pay their tax bills upfront while HM Revenue & Customs conducts investigations into their arrangements, under proposals announced by the Treasury.

The consultation will look at proposals to include any disputed tax associated with schemes that are subject to the Disclosure of Tax Avoidance Schemes (DOTAS) regime and taxpayers engaging in the most abusive tax avoidance and therefore being investigated under the government's General Anti-Abuse Rule (GAAR).

Further reading

Treasury criticises Hodge over PAC ‘grandstanding’
US tech companies move against tax avoidance reforms The move will eliminate the tactic some employ of holding onto disputed tax while their case is investigated and litigated, which can take years.

As things stand, HMRC currently wins 80% of tax disputes that it litigates.

Although not changing fundamental tax rules, the move will significantly shift the economic balance and boost HMRC's chances in resolving the approximately 65,000 cases it is currently investigating.

It is also thought it will act as a deterrent to those tempted to exploit the cashflow advantage allowed by the current rules.

At present, taxpayers must make a disclosure to the taxman when they enter a tax avoidance scheme, and in doing so accept HMRC may investigate and challenge it.

Taxpayers will be free to continue to make their case to the tribunal or court and, if successful, their money will be returned with interest.

Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury David Gauke (pictured) said: "The government has been absolutely clear that we will not tolerate aggressive tax avoidance and will take action to make sure people pay the taxes that are due. While the vast majority of taxpayers play by the rules, there is still a minority who will engage in artificial schemes as a way to avoid their responsibilities.

"The consultation we are publishing today will not only seek to remove the advantage that tax avoidance schemes users have; it will send a clear message to anyone thinking of using these schemes to avoid paying the tax that is due - tax avoidance doesn't pay."

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Changing those rules retrospectively means one thing, and one thing only. There are no rules any more for anything.

The government's counter to that is that retro is only ever used in wholly exceptional circumstances.

However it has never been explained why, if the scheme was so exceptional, HMRC sat on it until 2008.

HMRC first became aware that it was being used by hundreds of contractors as early as July 2002 when they published an internal technical exchange (TE63) about it.

Six years of twiddling their thumbs doesn't sound like they thought it was very exceptional.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

PERHAPS WE SHOULD BE PAYING ATTENTION TO WHAT IS GOING ON BEHIND THE SCENES:

Home News Personal tax Tax avoiders to pay up while HMRC investigates schemes
by Calum Fuller

Thanks Alba.

Consultation document here. Legislation is intended to be included in this year's budget, presumably with effect from April.

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload..._avoidance.pdf

ps. only skimmed it so far but section "4. Proposed extensions of the accelerated payments measure" (page 15) looks a bit ominous

[reckless]

Here we go again

Thanks Alba.

Consultation document here. Legislation is intended to be included in this year's budget, presumably with effect from April.

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload..._avoidance.pdf

ps. only skimmed it so far but section "4. Proposed extensions of the accelerated payments measure" (page 15) looks a bit ominous

So now we can get clobbered by a further shift of the goal posts, the proposed change, if applied to existing cases, is in effect another example of retrospective legislation. This country is now worse than Russia or Zimbawe. Why bother with any laws at all? Viv la revolution.