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

[DonkeyRhubarb]

so.......has anyone had any contact with an MP willing to propose such an amendment? I reckon I could convince my MP to vote for it - he won't raise it.

Anyone in contact with a sympathetic member of the finance committee?

Only MPs on the Finance Bill Committee get to vote on it.

Last I heard, Whitehouse were trying to find an MP who was willing to table an amendment.

[bananarepublic]

Follower notices could come into play if Huitson and/or Shiner lose their appeals.

Both these cases are already in the system so the timing is more down to the tax courts than HMRC. I don't think it will make any difference to the speed whether HMRC have collected the tax upfront or not.

A further minor point, it was announced in the Queen's speech that AP would be extended to NICs, so people could face APNs for tax + Class 4 nic.

I have always worked on the assumption that my case is linked to Huitson et al, so in what way does the follower legislation make a difference?

The only issue would be if the Shiner case went first and used different - losing - arguments, which would result in a follower notice for us without the Huitson arguments being heard. Aren't MP talking to the promoters of Shiner though?

I don't think the follower proposals are great, but there are some safeguards built and I just don't see how they are relevant to our S58 predicament.

As for the APN's I don't see what difference they have over me holding my liability in a CTD (subject to these being able to settle/reduce an APN demand whilst retaining the acrued tax interest saving).

Frankly I have put enough anger and disbelief into S58 without burdening myself worrying about measures that are unlikely to affect me.

[OnYourBikeGB]

I have always worked on the assumption that my case is linked to Huitson et al, so in what way does the follower legislation make a difference?

The only issue would be if the Shiner case went first and used different - losing - arguments, which would result in a follower notice for us without the Huitson arguments being heard. Aren't MP talking to the promoters of Shiner though?

I don't think the follower proposals are great, but there are some safeguards built and I just don't see how they are relevant to our S58 predicament.

As for the APN's I don't see what difference they have over me holding my liability in a CTD (subject to these being able to settle/reduce an APN demand whilst retaining the acrued tax interest saving).

Frankly I have put enough anger and disbelief into S58 without burdening myself worrying about measures that are unlikely to affect me.

The difference I would see, apart from loss of control over our money, is what would happen if we actually won. Getting it back while HMRC go to appeal etc is going to be a non-runner and they will drag it out for years (again). I have wondered if we will be on the list anyway, given that we are already in the system. If HMRCs aim is to cut the court backlog, then issuing us with an APN isn't going to make any difference, it may even be counter-productive as it's going to highlight a big number of bankruptcies as they try to push through controversial legislation.

I am slightly more optimistic of our chances with this legislation in place, because I think the courts may move to protect the tax-payer a bit more in response to these powers, but I'm not counting on it.

[d000hg]

Gauke was in favour of us in opposition.

It makes no difference who we vote for.

I thought this was Gauke's baby, rather?

[bananarepublic]

The difference I would see, apart from loss of control over our money, is what would happen if we actually won. Getting it back while HMRC go to appeal etc is going to be a non-runner and they will drag it out for years (again). I have wondered if we will be on the list anyway, given that we are already in the system. If HMRCs aim is to cut the court backlog, then issuing us with an APN isn't going to make any difference, it may even be counter-productive as it's going to highlight a big number of bankruptcies as they try to push through controversial legislation.

I am slightly more optimistic of our chances with this legislation in place, because I think the courts may move to protect the tax-payer a bit more in response to these powers, but I'm not counting on it.

Strictly speaking we won't have "won" until all the appeals processes are complete - up to and including the Supreme Court. If you have the tax saving tied up in a CTD then you would be certifiable to remove the money before the process had completed. Although, granted if you haven't made provision in this way there may be implications for having to pay up in advance.

The negative aspect of this legislation is that I can see that this will delay when we get our day in court. I think HMRC are underestimating the workload this will introduce.

When even the FTT say that S58 was introduced to tackle the type of avoidance we engaged in (see recent Shiner FTT case), we are are pretty much hanging on by our fingertips anyway.

... I do not want to be too negative - am just trying to understand how this will affect us. On balance it just sounds like it will bring forward the evil day when people - who don't have CTDs' - have to pay up. Apart from that - very little?

[tax is taxing]

MY MP's response

I have read all the information you sent me very carefully and I do appreciate where you are coming from. I am unable to table any amendments to legislation as doing so is likely to breach the Ministerial Code’s rules on collective responsibility.

I have, however, written to David Gauke MP, to raise the matter on your behalf. I will contact you again as soon as I receive a full response.

This is after meeting him once and writing to him twice. I am uncertain about who works for who here......

Asked for another appt - by then, it may be too late.

[smalldog]

Strictly speaking we won't have "won" until all the appeals processes are complete - up to and including the Supreme Court. If you have the tax saving tied up in a CTD then you would be certifiable to remove the money before the process had completed. Although, granted if you haven't made provision in this way there may be implications for having to pay up in advance.

The negative aspect of this legislation is that I can see that this will delay when we get our day in court. I think HMRC are underestimating the workload this will introduce.

When even the FTT say that S58 was introduced to tackle the type of avoidance we engaged in (see recent Shiner FTT case), we are are pretty much hanging on by our fingertips anyway.

... I do not want to be too negative - am just trying to understand how this will affect us. On balance it just sounds like it will bring forward the evil day when people - who don't have CTDs' - have to pay up. Apart from that - very little?

for me personally the APN is a better outcome than the court case which would have been payment for all tax years plus interest if we had lost. This way I get to stop the clock running, with a smaller payment and there is a chance it could be years and years before the case is finally decided, if ever!

[BrilloPad]

I thought this was Gauke's baby, rather?

Not atall. He was very very supportive in opposition. I think I sent him a facebook message once on this with quotes before/after the election. Naturally I got zero response. A bit like those who have tried to contact AB - they just bury themselves.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

The only issue would be if the Shiner case went first and used different - losing - arguments, which would result in a follower notice for us without the Huitson arguments being heard. Aren't MP talking to the promoters of Shiner though?

It's likely the FTT will conjoin the cases like the Court of Appeal did with the judicial review.

You are basically right though that follower notices are of little concern to us.

[d000hg]

Not atall. He was very very supportive in opposition. I think I sent him a facebook message once on this with quotes before/after the election. Naturally I got zero response. A bit like those who have tried to contact AB - they just bury themselves.

Have you shared them in this thread before, out of interest?