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

[lucozade]

My MP has asked me to forward on any evidence of HMRC wrongdoing. What's our stance on this?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

My MP has asked me to forward on any evidence of HMRC wrongdoing. What's out stance on this?

Another toolkit is being prepared which will outline alleged HMRC wrongdoings to enable members to write to their MP.

The next newsletter is expected mid-March

[lucozade]

Another toolkit is being prepared which will outline alleged HMRC wrongdoings to enable members to write to their MP.

The next newsletter is expected mid-March

Cheers DR.

I'm not at all happy with my MPs lack of "personalisation" with regards this. He appears to be completely holding the Government position and not seeing the human side of things. I'm determined to pester him till he breaks.

His recent letter says "It is the Government view that, in this case, retrospective legislation was both proportionate and justified in the public interest".

I want him to ask Gauke and co. why it's not in the public interest to apply the same principles to Gary Barlow and Jimmy Carr, as an example.

[flamel]

Can you get something that explains in very simple language what the issues are - I get the feeling that there is a lack of understanding from MPs

[Samatra]

some thing that may help our legal team

quote Lord Denning:

“No court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud. No judgment of a court, no order of a minister can be allowed to stand, if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything.”

Lazarus Estates Ltd v Beasley [1956] 1All ER 341 at 345B

[lucozade]

Can you get something that explains in very simple language what the issues are - I get the feeling that there is a lack of understanding from MPs

I get the impression from my MP that he does understand the situation but he's been told to toe the party line. He was originally very happy to help but in a lot of ways I do understand his point. The retro part has been discussed many times in Parliament. Gauke and HMRC are holding firm to protect themselves. I'll be honest I don't see this ending well now.

I personally think the only angle we have is the use of retrospection in the UK at all and whether that breaches your human rights. Every other angle/fight we have is simple cannon fodder for these hardy departments.

[helen7]

I personally think the only angle we have is the use of retrospection in the UK at all and whether that breaches your human rights. Every other angle/fight we have is simple cannon fodder for these hardy departments.

It doesn't. Judge already ruled on this.

I would have thought that our angle should be arguing that users of other 'schemes' are not being treated with retrospective changes to the law. Surely we have a right to be treated under the same rules?

I would also like it argued that the interest payments are unjust up until the 2008 announcement. However, I am sure they would argue that they 'advised' us to pay on account when they opened inquiries.

[cojak]

It doesn't. Judge already ruled on this.

I would have thought that our angle should be arguing that users of other 'schemes' are not being treated with retrospective changes to the law. Surely we have a right to be treated under the same rules?

I would advise against that - have you seen the thread for the condoc for marketed tax avoidance schemes in the HMRC Enquiries forum?
http://forums.contractoruk.com/hmrc-...e-schemes.html

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I would advise against that - have you seen the thread for the condoc for marketed tax avoidance schemes in the HMRC Enquiries forum?
http://forums.contractoruk.com/hmrc-...e-schemes.html

Or read the CIOT's response to the consultation. The DOTAS proposal has retrospective effect back to 2004, and potentially affects 65,000 people.

http://www.tax.org.uk/Resources/CIOT...20response.pdf

[travellingknob]

I would also like it argued that the interest payments are unjust up until the 2008 announcement. However, I am sure they would argue that they 'advised' us to pay on account when they opened inquiries.

Agree, don't understand how interest can possibly be charged on tax that wouldn't arise under S58(4) until 08-09 year and thus not due until Jan 2010 ! However, the reverse then holds..... if it all became taxable in 2008 then presumably your income that year suddenly jumps way into the 40% bracket and the whole lot is taxed at higher rate (some earlier years part of it may not have been). Also, above the upper earnings limit NI was only 1% I believe for tax 08-09.
One for the FTT to decide but I suspect for many people it would be better overall if it was all taxed in 08-09 rather than each earlier year. Of course I'd rather the FTT decide S58(4) doesn't apply at all but taxing it all in 08-09 would be the next best outcome for me.