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

[smalldog]

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

Not clear what it means if someone has say a house that can cover the liability that would need to be sold to pay the amount. I assume the time to pay rules will kick in. Also doesnt make mention of anything to do with bankruptcy should the payment be forced.

[Alba]

Terrifying precedent

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

"Put in place a requirement for taxpayers to settle their dispute on receipt of
a notice (a ‘follower notice’) that their case is on the same or substantially
the same grounds as a case already decided in the tribunal or court; and"

After a brief reading of this, found the above statment to be a rather terrifying precedent if it follows though to other areas of the law, i.e. was it MURDER, or was it murder me lord, based on it being substantially on the same grounds as a case already decided in the court!

Opens up all sorts of nasties for UK Limited.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Section 4, Proposal 1 (page 15) is much more worrying than the "follower" proposal.

This allows HMRC to issue a payment notice, irrespective of whether any related case has been tested in court.

This is no doubt intended to catch most of the 65,000 open case backlog.

[BernardOKelly]

Worrying Development

Section 4, Proposal 1 (page 15) is much more worrying than the "follower" proposal.

This allows HMRC to issue a payment notice, irrespective of whether any related case has been tested in court.

This is no doubt intended to catch most of the 65,000 open case backlog.

Provided that a DOTAS number has been or ought to have been issued. That covers a lot but perhaps not all of the 65,000 backlog

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Provided that a DOTAS number has been or ought to have been issued. That covers a lot but perhaps not all of the 65,000 backlog

Point 4.6, bullet point 3:

"Who should have entered a SRN, or should have appeared on a ‘client list’ but
have not done so – either because the scheme was not disclosed as it should
have been, or the taxpayer has not entered the SRN when they should have
done so."

I bet they'll argue that, after 2004 when DOTAS came in, everyone "should have"

[PlaneSailing]

Nonsense

Point 4.6, bullet point 3:

"Who should have entered a SRN, or should have appeared on a ‘client list’ but
have not done so – either because the scheme was not disclosed as it should
have been, or the taxpayer has not entered the SRN when they should have
done so."

I bet they'll argue that, after 2004 when DOTAS came in, everyone "should have"

So if this was in place in 2004, I would have paid them what they think I owe whilst they investigate, then they sit around for 7 years (or more as there is no incentive for them to do anything ) then they would retrospectively change the law to say that the money I've paid is theirs!

This is a licence to thieve.

[PlaneSailing]

Point 4.6, bullet point 3:

"Who should have entered a SRN, or should have appeared on a ‘client list’ but
have not done so – either because the scheme was not disclosed as it should
have been, or the taxpayer has not entered the SRN when they should have
done so."

I bet they'll argue that, after 2004 when DOTAS came in, everyone "should have"

And as for using the process for cash flow advantage :

1.Hector, sort it out. (7 years of inactivity...)
2.Why should the Government have the cash flow advantage instead?

[smalldog]

From what I've read it appears that the amount payable in advance is the postponement amount excluding interest! It might make it a bit less onerous. Only once appeal is settled they then calculate the interest portion as a balancing payment.

That's how I read the detail anyway, anyone?

[Alba]

Westminster in ‘anti-tax avoidance arms race’, says Redwood

Section 4, Proposal 1 (page 15) is much more worrying than the "follower" proposal.

This allows HMRC to issue a payment notice, irrespective of whether any related case has been tested in court.

This is no doubt intended to catch most of the 65,000 open case backlog.

PERHAPS THERE IS SOME SENSE WITHIN THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY!

WESTMINSTER IS CAUGHT UP in an "anti-tax avoidance arms race" that is in danger of distorting the debate, and could have a chilling effect on genuinely commercial activities, according to Conservative MP John Redwood.

The Treasury yesterday announced proposals that would see users of tax avoidance schemes compelled to pay their tax bills upfront while HM Revenue & Customs conducts investigations into their arrangements.



Further reading

Tax avoiders to pay up while HMRC investigates schemes


Crackdown on LLPs will catch 'reasonable' arrangements


Meanwhile, the taxation of limited liability partnerships (LLPs) is under scrutiny, with HM Revenue & Customs and the Treasury concerned that it allows "disguised employment" to take place, whereby people who are ostensibly partners, in fact have a guaranteed income and little decision-making power.

However, steps to prevent that from taking place are in danger of impinging on innocuous, commercially-motivated activities, stakeholders maintain.

"There is an arms race over anti-avoidance [between the main parties]", Tory MP Redwood told a New City Initiative roundtable in London. "'Avoidance' is a terribly convenient idea for the political classes. It puts you [the taxpayer] on the defensive, it implies you're doing something wrong, you [the government] don't have to threaten people with higher tax rates, but you find ways under anti-avoidance to take more of their money off them."

Redwood added a "concept of good and bad avoidance" is needed in order to further the debate.

He said: "There's a lot of good avoidance - and there must be good avoidance - because it's actively encouraged by the government. I've explained to my parliamentary colleagues that they're all tax avoiders, and I know they're all tax avoiders because they all contribute to the parliamentary pension fund.

"One of the main ways that people avoid tax in Britain is by putting money away for their future retirement. It's one of the many purposes the government says is wholly worthy, and one of the things my colleagues do is move on from dabbling in pensions to become serial avoiders and they take out an ISA.

"So we need a concept of good avoidance and bad avoidance."

[BrilloPad]

"So we need a concept of good avoidance and bad avoidance."

Isn't that avoidance and evasion?