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

[BrilloPad]

Unfortunately I think it's coming for us sooner or later. I'd rather it was later too, if it can't be not at all. I did send my letter to HMRC opposing the legislation, I think it's vicious, unfair and unnecessary, but if it does go through I hope the fallout is spectacular. If more had backed us in the early days, maybe it wouldn't have got this far. Now more people will have to fight for their rights, and that might be a turning point, because this has gone on too far and for too long.

I no longer care when it comes. Im going bankrupt.

One argument for the new rules is that supposedly by asking for the money earlier it is less likely that the demand will lead to bankruptcy. I know thats not the case for anyone on here and I'm not sure how accurate the idea is full stop but its been argued more than once...

I actually think its a good idea if applied prospectively. The problem is it will be applied retrospectively.

[screwthis]

One argument for the new rules is that supposedly by asking for the money earlier it is less likely that the demand will lead to bankruptcy. I know thats not the case for anyone on here and I'm not sure how accurate the idea is full stop but its been argued more than once...

Tenuous as that is, it might be the case if it is applied prospectively. To retro it on people who have already been retroed and pretend it's going to help avoid bankruptcy......

[nevergiveup]

With all this negativity going on, anyone know when a NTRT update is coming. This usually lifts everyone?

NGU

[jbryce]

One argument for the new rules is that supposedly by asking for the money earlier it is less likely that the demand will lead to bankruptcy. I know thats not the case for anyone on here and I'm not sure how accurate the idea is full stop but its been argued more than once...

For those likely to be impacted by any retrospective application it's not really a tenuous argument. It's even mentioned in the Chartered Institute of Taxation response. People will suffer hardship and, unless HMRC employs a raft of staff to negotiate -hopefully- flexible time to pay arrangements, there will be thousands of bankrupts taken out of the economy.

[PlaneSailing]

Hmmmm

For those likely to be impacted by any retrospective application it's not really a tenuous argument. It's even mentioned in the Chartered Institute of Taxation response. People will suffer hardship and, unless HMRC employs a raft of staff to negotiate -hopefully- flexible time to pay arrangements, there will be thousands of bankrupts taken out of the economy.

Not sure I like para 14.4. They appear to have fallen for the 'prelonged legislation' rubbish spouted in BN66. That didn't work as planned did it (7 years after the announcement and 11 years since HMRC started 'investigating') ?

And as for protecting the public purse, the oft quoted, but never backed up, £200million is a vanishingly small percentage of GDP.

[travellingknob]

HMRC Investigations

I currently have a contract at a site with 4 permanent members of staff and 7 contractors all doing distinct projects. When I first received enquiry and discovery notices from HMRC in 2007 and later closure notices after BN66 in 2008 I knew not a single other person who had open HMRC investigations nor at that time 12 years into contracting anyone who had ever had enquiries opened.

Today onsite the 4 permanent staff are being made redundant and trying to negotiate their redundacy gets moved til after 5th April for tax reasons, 1 contractor just received EBT discovery and assessment and closure notice all in one go, one contractor just had an IR35 enqury opened against his ltd co., one contractor is in ongoing battle with HMRC over ldt co.accounts, 1 contractor just received £30k Tax demand for for a completely different type of scheme, I am ongoing, and 3 remaining contractors are bricking themselves for when it might be their turn. Of course all this uncertainly doesn't impact the business environment at all ... NOT !

We live in sad times. Oh how simple it all was before IR35

[SantaClaus]

Not sure I like para 14.4. They appear to have fallen for the 'prelonged legislation' rubbish spouted in BN66. That didn't work as planned did it (7 years after the announcement and 11 years since HMRC started 'investigating') ?

And as for protecting the public purse, the oft quoted, but never backed up, £200million is a vanishingly small percentage of GDP.

Of course, the alleged "£200 million" falls into insignificance when compared to this:

The United Kingdom National Debt Clock 2014 Counter >> nationaldebtclock.co.uk

UK debt was £1,335,092,350,000 at the time of posting. Actually, forget the last 6 figures... they are moving too quickly to read! Heck, I can't even say that number

[SantaClaus]

I currently have a contract at a site with 4 permanent members of staff and 7 contractors all doing distinct projects. When I first received enquiry and discovery notices from HMRC in 2007 and later closure notices after BN66 in 2008 I knew not a single other person who had open HMRC investigations nor at that time 12 years into contracting anyone who had ever had enquiries opened.

Today onsite the 4 permanent staff are being made redundant and trying to negotiate their redundacy gets moved til after 5th April for tax reasons, 1 contractor just received EBT discovery and assessment and closure notice all in one go, one contractor just had an IR35 enqury opened against his ltd co., one contractor is in ongoing battle with HMRC over ldt co.accounts, 1 contractor just received £30k Tax demand for for a completely different type of scheme, I am ongoing, and 3 remaining contractors are bricking themselves for when it might be their turn. Of course all this uncertainly doesn't impact the business environment at all ... NOT !

We live in sad times. Oh how simple it all was before IR35

It is my belief that the ultimate goal of HMRC is to get everyone under PAYE. PAYE = state control.

Anyone who thinks they are safe running a Ltd company as a "genuine" business is sadly deluded IMHO, and your post has partially proven it.

[Disgusted of Coventry]

Or the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law.

Increasingly it seems judges are leaning towards the latter.

There is note about this here from one of the EBT promoters, which is worth a read.

http://forums.contractoruk.com/hmrc-...ml#post1880612

Do you think that assumption is correct - that the UK Government is influencing how Judges should now interpret tax cases? There was a CofA judgment a few years ago concerning a scheme called 'SHIPS 2'. It was typically unreadably opaque, but there was one paragraph which expressed the role of the Courts with refreshing clarity:

20. If the taxpayer succeeds and HMRC and Parliament do not like the result, the law can be re-adjusted for the future (???) in a Finance Act preceded by public debate and passed by democratic legislative processes. Even if the courts do not like the result, they have no means at their disposal to amend a law enacted by Parliament. Their sole function is to decide the case on their best understanding of the relevant transactions and the applicable law, whatever that may be. Whether or not the courts approve of the outcome is beside the point. It is not for judges to shoulder the law-making responsibilities of Parliament.

That last sentence also seems to contradict the idea of retro legislation. I can't see any difference between judges directly shouldering the law-making responsibilities of Parliament, or indirectly allowing retrospective changes to the Law. They both amount to the same thing. It's just that, in the retro case, the Courts are allowing Parliament to have repeated bites of the legislative cherry until a passing Judge says "Yep! That's the one!".

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Do you think that assumption is correct - that the UK Government is influencing how Judges should now interpret tax cases?

Not directly but Judges are not immune, and nor should they be, to changes in society. The attitude to tax avoidance has hardened dramatically in recent years and that must figure in the minds of Judges. The courts have also been affected by the austerity cuts.

Let me put it this way, I wouldn't feel so confident stepping into court now relying on the "letter of the law" as I would have done several years ago.