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

[SantaClaus]

Non Violent Direct Action. Think Jesus or fathers4justice. Just don't think of Mandela - he was a terrorist.

Ah I see. Well just standing in the street is enough to get you arrested now.
But if you want to don a Batman outfit, I must warn you... I'm scared of heights.

[BrilloPad]

Ah I see. Well just standing in the street is enough to get you arrested now.
But if you want to don a Batman outfit, I must warn you... I'm scared of heights.

Plenty of other stunts can be pulled at ground level. Most polling stations are at ground level. Gauke's certainly is.

[jeanvaljean]

Tweeting

Keep the tweeting going folks, it's not going unnoticed by the Finance Bill Committee.

Can you elaborate? Is it safe to do so in our free and fair society?

Unless it has the effect we need, however, I fear that it is just Although it's great to see the gloves at least and last beginning to come off ....... our side's gloves that is!

[DotasScandal]

Are protests allowed...

Am I the only one to see an oxymoron in such a question?



www.dotas-scandal.org

[SantaClaus]

Worth a read - a very onside document which was referred to in this article recently posted...

Revenue Law Committee response to Office of Tax
Simplification competitiveness review

http://www.citysolicitors.org.uk/attachments/article/105/20140605%20Response%20to%20Office%20of%20Tax%20Sim plification%E2%80%99s%20'Competitiveness%20review% 20-%20initial%20thoughts%20and%20call%20for%20evidenc e'.pdf

excerpt...

"2.1 We have a broad concern, applicable to all taxes, that tax policymakers are insufficiently conscious of the importance of the rule of law – that is, the constitutional right of a citizen to determine the law applicable to him at any given date. Related to this is a similar problem of lack of respect for legislation as the only proper source of law, and over-reliance on guidance.

2.2 The current Government has legislated retrospectively against certain types of stamp duty land tax avoidance schemes, and also against what it perceived to be avoidance structures in the field of corporation tax on loan relationships. In many of these cases the relevant structures had been known to HMRC for some time prior to the retrospective change (although we would accept that HMRC's internal communication systems may have been inadequate to convey this knowledge to policymakers: improvements in this area of tax administration are doubtless necessary too). We do not consider that this is acceptable. Business must know that the law in place when transactions take place will be the law that applies to them. This principle is either absolute or it is nothing – once it has been broken once, further breaches are only questions of degree. It is not an adequate response to warn in advance on a generic basis that retrospective legislation might be applied in an area. It is hard to overstate how damaging to business perception of a jurisdiction it is if a government indulges in retrospective taxation."

Please spread this one far and wide. Send it to your MPs, tweet about it.

[smalldog]

Worth a read - a very onside document which was referred to in this article recently posted...

Revenue Law Committee response to Office of Tax
Simplification competitiveness review

http://www.citysolicitors.org.uk/attachments/article/105/20140605%20Response%20to%20Office%20of%20Tax%20Sim plification%E2%80%99s%20'Competitiveness%20review% 20-%20initial%20thoughts%20and%20call%20for%20evidenc e'.pdf

excerpt...

"2.1 We have a broad concern, applicable to all taxes, that tax policymakers are insufficiently conscious of the importance of the rule of law – that is, the constitutional right of a citizen to determine the law applicable to him at any given date. Related to this is a similar problem of lack of respect for legislation as the only proper source of law, and over-reliance on guidance.

2.2 The current Government has legislated retrospectively against certain types of stamp duty land tax avoidance schemes, and also against what it perceived to be avoidance structures in the field of corporation tax on loan relationships. In many of these cases the relevant structures had been known to HMRC for some time prior to the retrospective change (although we would accept that HMRC's internal communication systems may have been inadequate to convey this knowledge to policymakers: improvements in this area of tax administration are doubtless necessary too). We do not consider that this is acceptable. Business must know that the law in place when transactions take place will be the law that applies to them. This principle is either absolute or it is nothing – once it has been broken once, further breaches are only questions of degree. It is not an adequate response to warn in advance on a generic basis that retrospective legislation might be applied in an area. It is hard to overstate how damaging to business perception of a jurisdiction it is if a government indulges in retrospective taxation."

Please spread this one far and wide. Send it to your MPs, tweet about it.

Sent this to John Redwood who is in support already. Hopefully will give him more ammo...

[OneUnited]

Worth a read - a very onside document which was referred to in this article recently posted...

Revenue Law Committee response to Office of Tax
Simplification competitiveness review

http://www.citysolicitors.org.uk/attachments/article/105/20140605%20Response%20to%20Office%20of%20Tax%20Sim plification%E2%80%99s%20'Competitiveness%20review% 20-%20initial%20thoughts%20and%20call%20for%20evidenc e'.pdf

excerpt...

"2.1 We have a broad concern, applicable to all taxes, that tax policymakers are insufficiently conscious of the importance of the rule of law – that is, the constitutional right of a citizen to determine the law applicable to him at any given date. Related to this is a similar problem of lack of respect for legislation as the only proper source of law, and over-reliance on guidance.

2.2 The current Government has legislated retrospectively against certain types of stamp duty land tax avoidance schemes, and also against what it perceived to be avoidance structures in the field of corporation tax on loan relationships. In many of these cases the relevant structures had been known to HMRC for some time prior to the retrospective change (although we would accept that HMRC's internal communication systems may have been inadequate to convey this knowledge to policymakers: improvements in this area of tax administration are doubtless necessary too). We do not consider that this is acceptable. Business must know that the law in place when transactions take place will be the law that applies to them. This principle is either absolute or it is nothing – once it has been broken once, further breaches are only questions of degree. It is not an adequate response to warn in advance on a generic basis that retrospective legislation might be applied in an area. It is hard to overstate how damaging to business perception of a jurisdiction it is if a government indulges in retrospective taxation."

Please spread this one far and wide. Send it to your MPs, tweet about it.

Sent to Graeme Morris always been very supportive.

[SantaClaus]

Hi all

Just to let you know, I've been told it's most probable that the section of the Finance Bill that relates to us will be heard on Tuesday at either the 9:10 or 14:00 sitting.

On the plus side, it gives you all plenty more time to harass your MPs.

Regards

Santa

[Manu]

Response from Mr. Gauke to my MP on my letter

==========================

Thanks you for your letter enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Mr. xxxxx, about the Budget announcement of new measures to require accelerated payment of tax in avoidance disputes. I am sorry for the delay in responding.

The Govt's response to the consultation was published on 27 March and is available at .....http://....

The Govt is determined to keep up the pressure on tax avoidance. Since 2010, we have introduced a number of new measures, including new rues on 'disguised remuneration', the general anti-abuse rule, and legislation to close a number of avoidance loopholes. For e.g. we closed a loophole involving corporate debt buy backs in Feb 2012, and in Dec 2012, we acted within a week of a disclosure to close the loophole that tried to exploit property business loss relief.

Our actions on avoidance will protect billion of pounds in tax that would otherwise be lost to the Exchequer. Tackling avoidance schemes is an important part of HMRC's overall compliance effort which has secured more than £65 billion in compliance yield since the start of this parliament. We have been clear throughout that the small minority who try to avoid tax must not be allowed to try to pass the burden onto the compliant majority. These new measures continue our work to tackle tax avoidance - dealing with schemes that have been put together with the sole aim of paying less tax than Parliament intended, often a great deal less. In a large number of these cases the Exchequer has waited a long time for this tax, and in the meantime the vast majority of people have been paying their tax upfront - for e.g. through PAYE.

The Govt therefore believes it is time to apply the general tax approach of 'Pay now, dispute later' to tax avoidance schemes, bearing in mind that HMRC already withholds repayments in disputed tax cases.

We are also taking a leading role in international initiatives led by the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development, to look at Base Erosion and Profit Shifting by multinationals. Therefore ensuring that they pay the right amount of tax in the countries where they do business and earn their profits.

Please pass on my thanks to Mr. XXXXXX for taking the trouble to make us aware of these concerns.

David Gauke

===================

What more to expect....except brown envelopes coming through post asking to pay up.....The outcome of finance bill hearing next week is crystal clear (at least to me).

Getting ready to sell out home and move into a rental house. Setting kids expectations for the move.

What bothers me is still these 'scheme makers' are out there advertising openly. Nothing (except their names) has changed back from 2008 when I searched for an 'Umbrella company' in Google and came across a list of one's offering 85 - 90%. If you search even today these schemes comes up on top of the search. Why is that no genuine one's top the list?

Shouldn't this be part of the Govt initiative to not allow these schemes in the first place when they are declared under DOTAS going forward?

[eek]

Shouldn't this be part of the Govt initiative to not allow these schemes in the first place when they are declared under DOTAS going forward?

You are aware that since Accelerated Payments came in most schemes aren't using DOTAS anymore.... They are trying to keep under the radar by not registering.....