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

[travellingknob]

Where did you hear that? PA Holdings is quite an old case I think

Yes PA holdings was put to bed early last year I believe and is not a direct comparison but I was told its the interpretation of it that can be extended.

[OnYourBikeGB]

Just moving into a new contract and I have to complete security vetting, which of course contains the 'Have you ever been investigated by HMRC?' question. It's a bit worrying, but I will answer it honestly. Anyone had any experience of vetting since this all started and if so can I expect problems?

[lucozade]

Just moving into a new contract and I have to complete security vetting, which of course contains the 'Have you ever been investigated by HMRC?' question. It's a bit worrying, but I will answer it honestly. Anyone had any experience of vetting since this all started and if so can I expect problems?

I declared when I went through DV clearance a good while ago. The vetting officer asked me to explain it and then summed it up with "wow retrospection puts a new spin on people who would normally be law abiding and in this case I'm going to ignore it". I got my DV but then it lapsed. You've not been investigated by HMRC you've just been told you may or may not owe some tax. Declare the scheme and the amounts and let them decide. It's just a debt at the end of day and they may just consider you more susceptible to bribes.

Just be honest

[travellingknob]

I declared when I went through DV clearance a good while ago. The vetting officer asked me to explain it and then summed it up with "wow retrospection puts a new spin on people who would normally be law abiding and in this case I'm going to ignore it". I got my DV but then it lapsed. You've not been investigated by HMRC you've just been told you may or may not owe some tax. Declare the scheme and the amounts and let them decide. It's just a debt at the end of day and they may just consider you more susceptible to bribes.

Just be honest

I dont get where your coming from, HMRC open enquiries into tax returns as a matter of course. That does not mean your being investigated and theres absolutely no reason to tell anyone anything about it. Neither do you owe tax, its suspended pending appeal and thats the end of it. There is no demand nor debt to pay so where's the bribes reasoning ?Again no reason to tell anyone.

[cojak]

I dont get where your coming from, HMRC open enquiries into tax returns as a matter of course. That does not mean your being investigated and theres absolutely no reason to tell anyone anything about it. Neither do you owe tax, its suspended pending appeal and thats the end of it. There is no demand nor debt to pay so where's the bribes reasoning ?Again no reason to tell anyone.

When going through DV clearance you declare EVERYTHING. As the previous poster said, it's for the vetters to decide whether it's relevant.

[centurian]

WCS - Trying to re-interpret the DV question to avoid giving information is a massive no-no - it's one of the main things they are trying to tease out - whether you can give a straight answer to a pretty simple question. If they find out, they will have no confidence in any of your answers, and it will probably result in an automatic fail - regardless of whether you would have passed if you had declared it in the first place.

With DV, declare everything.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Montpelier are aware of a number of people who have applied for DV clearance.

All declared the dispute with HMRC. None were refused clearance.

[OnYourBikeGB]

Thanks folks, I appreciate it. It sounds like it should all be fine, which is a relief!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Response to consultation by Robert Venables QC

http://www.taxchambers.com/sites/def...sultations.pdf

"Had we never had the Glorious Revolution of 1688 which firmly established that the
Administration is not a law onto itself but that its actions can always be called into
account in the Courts, had we not defeated the absolutist Napoleon Bonaparte, had Hitler
won the Second World War and we were now a fascist society and if we did not have a
Human Rights Act, HMRC’s proposals would, perhaps, make some sense. As it is, they
are utterly repugnant to the values of the people of the United Kingdom society in 2014.
That these proposals could now even be mooted, shows that there is something very
rotten in the state of HMRC."

[reckless]

http://www.taxchambers.com/sites/def...sultations.pdf

"Had we never had the Glorious Revolution of 1688 utterly repugnant to the values of the people of the United Kingdom society in 2014.
That these proposals could now even be mooted, shows that there is something very
rotten in the state of HMRC."

An absolutely excellent quotation DR. This should be trumpeted from the roof-tops, so that all citizens of the UK become aware of the fate that awaits them if this morally repugnant government succeeds with its Orwellian plans.
Viv la revolution!