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

[lucozade]

The Nazis have taken over FFS

[OnYourBikeGB]

The Nazis have taken over FFS

And they lost in the end. There is going to be a backlash, nobody wanted this outside of the Government and HMRC. DRs recent posting has even made me wonder if HMRC wanted it. Now that it's here, other voices will be heard and not just Gauke/Osborne. This will cause a public debate, and may well change the landscape. The type of debate that we were always wary off because we were so marginalised. Judges were leaning more towards clamping down on avoidance, taking the Governments line hook, line and sinker. Now they have to consider that if they make a judgement, HMRC will be free to interpret that ruling anyway they like. So judges are going to be looking much more closely at the letter of the law again, I hope. The other effect of this is that HMRC will start losing more cases, irrespective of whether the judge looks at the letter of the law or not, simply because they are now forcing people to go to court to get their money back, whereas before they were able to pick and choose. I wouldn't wish what we have gone through on anyone, but I think this is a blunder.

[PlaneSailing]

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...Final_v1.0.pdf

They have even decided to redefine retrospective. No one in their right mind would fall for that doublespeak.

How this can be viewed as 'consultation' is beyond me.

And as for 400 responses from a website, I hope he's not including me. I will be seeking clarification from them, as I wrote on my own behalf.

[BeenGauked]

Looks like David Gauke isn't as clever as he thought...

He forgot to register <Mod snip> preferring instead to opt for the .co version. Says a lot about him really, a career politician who doesn't give a toss about anyone else and sees politics as a way to get rich.

One day Gauke's retrospective tax will come back and bite him in the butt.

[jbryce]

Looks like David Gauke isn't as clever as he thought...

He forgot to register <mod snip> preferring instead to opt for the .co version. Says a lot about him really, a career politician who doesn't give a toss about anyone else and sees politics as a way to get rich.

One day Gauke's retrospective tax will come back and bite him in the butt.

He's a politician, so none of this is personal.

His means of solving the avoidance problem is draconian and some aspects of it may struggle under scrutiny. The consultation document acknowledges your right to have your case heard in court, but takes the assumption that you will lose and therefore must pay up front. The impact this may have on a user, in the presumption of innocence, may well be life changing. An ability to gain a phyrric victory after a user has lost their house or been made bankrupt is surely not the intention of this legislation - unfortunately that will happen to many.

Gauke may be a career politician with a Tax Avoidance wife specialist, but that's the sort of person the Tories tend to choose as their parliamentarians.

[helen7]

Presumably nobody here would ever use a tax planning scheme again; so this legislation doesn't really effect us. We all knew we'd probably have to pay up this year.

Shouldn't efforts be focused on repealing s58 rather than this; which seems just a distraction.

[cojak]

Just to remind everyone that this thread is heavily moderated.

You may not agree with posts on here but please don't post just to jeer at people.

(And for those inside the tent, don't think that because there's no stream coming in, everyone agrees with you).

[DonkeyRhubarb]

NTRT newsletter

The NTRT chairman send his apologies that the latest newsletter, that was to have been sent out today, will be delayed a few days whilst we assess the implications of the Accelerated Payment Notice (APN) clauses in the 2014 Finance Bill published yesterday.

[Fireship]

Presumably nobody here would ever use a tax planning scheme again; so this legislation doesn't really effect us. We all knew we'd probably have to pay up this year.

Shouldn't efforts be focused on repealing s58 rather than this; which seems just a distraction.

I have to disagree, this has direct impact on S58 and any resulting claims for tax due. As such it should be part of any challenge/action.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I have to disagree, this has direct impact on S58 and any resulting claims for tax due. As such it should be part of any challenge/action.

APNs could impact our members so we will be campaigning against them, although it's not our primary focus and we are hoping that other affected parties will take the lead on this.