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

[PlaneSailing]

Having some banter with Jane Kennedy @jane4merseyside today.

Her only reply to "who lied to parliament to get s58(4) into law" is "tax avoidance scheme".

Have fun

Just seen the reason she stood down as a minister. Not declaring employing her spouse on expenses.

No mention of how long this went on for. I wonder what the tax saving of employing my partner on expenses is ? It's certainly not a tax maximising strategy. I can't do it on PAYE. Hypocrite of Gaukean proportions.

Minister in sleaze row over research job for partner at taxpayers' expense | Mail Online

[lucozade]

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

Just seen the reason she stood down as a minister. Not declaring employing her spouse on expenses.

No mention of how long this went on for. I wonder what the tax saving of employing my partner on expenses is ? It's certainly not a tax maximising strategy. I can't do it on PAYE. Hypocrite of Gaukean proportions.

Minister in sleaze row over research job for partner at taxpayers' expense | Mail Online

They are all at it mate and they have a cheek to criticise others.

My own MP was giving out passes to Westminster for his Brazilian rent boy FFS.

I hear the net is closing in on identifying the twitter feed @fotgetfotdo. I'm sure we'd all love to know why this troll keeps popping up when in conversation with Jane Kennedy and why he finds it necessary to abuse those who done nothing illegal.

[OnYourBikeGB]

They are all at it mate and they have a cheek to criticise others.

And let's not forget Danny Alexander, one of the holier than thou defenders of the public purse against the morally repugnant tax dodgers.

Tax Cheating Danny Alexander - Guy Fawkes' blog

[jbryce]

Not all retrospection works

Judge said that the government can't apply things retrospectively just to suit themselves.
See this.

Interesting, and where the fight moves to. For us all.

[DotasScandal]

Judge said that the government can't apply things retrospectively just to suit themselves.
See this.

Interesting, and where the fight moves to. For us all.

+1

[BrilloPad]

Judge said that the government can't apply things retrospectively just to suit themselves.
See this.

Interesting, and where the fight moves to. For us all.

Haven't we already been in front of Judge Parker who declared what parliament did as legal?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Haven't we already been in front of Judge Parker who declared what parliament did as legal?

That was Section 58. APNs are a different ballgame.

[lucozade]

That was Section 58. APNs are a different ballgame.

Remind me was that high court and it was determined that retrospection was perfectly fine?

[BrilloPad]

That was Section 58. APNs are a different ballgame.

But we might not even be affected?

I do wonder when the list of schemes affected is coming out.

[Ninja]

Mrs Justice Lang ruling on DWP Retropective Legislation (4 July 2014)

Judge said that the government can't apply things retrospectively just to suit themselves.
See this.

Interesting, and where the fight moves to. For us all.

"Retrospective legislation may be defined as law making which alters the future legal consequences of past actions and events. The longstanding objections to retrospective legislation are described in Bennion on Statutory Interpretation (6th ed.) p. 291:
“Dislike of ex post facto law is enshrined in the United States Constitution and in the constitutions of many American states, which forbid it. The true principle is that lex prospicit non respicit (law looks forward not back).
1 Retrospective legislation is ‘contrary to the general principle that legislation by which the conduct of mankind is to be regulated ought, when introduced for the first time, to deal with future acts, and ought not to change the character of past transactions carried on upon the faith of the then existing law’.
2 The basis of the principle against retrospectivity is ‘no more than simple fairness, which ought to be the basis of every legal rule’.
3 Retrospectivity is artificial, deeming a thing to be what it was not. Artificiality and make-believe are generally repugnant to law as the servant of human welfare. So it follows that the courts apply the general presumption that an enactment is not intended to have retrospective effect. As always, the power of Parliament to produce such an effect where it wishes to do so is nevertheless undoubted" Page 13

"The ECtHR found, at [59], that there were no compelling grounds justifying legislative intervention while proceedings were pending. Among other factors, the financial risk adverted to by the Government could not warrant its action in substituting itself for the courts in order to settle the dispute. " Page 15

"Although these principles emanate from decisions of the ECtHR, in my view they also accurately reflect fundamental principles of the UK’s unwritten constitution. The constitutional principle of the rule of law was expressly recognised in section 1, Constitutional Reform Act 2005. It requires, inter alia, that Parliament and the Executive recognise and respect the separation of powers and abide by the principle of legality. Although the Crown in Parliament is the sovereign legislative power, the Courts have the constitutional role of determining and enforcing legality. Thus, Parliament’s undoubted power to legislate to overrule the effect of court judgments generally ought not to take the form of retrospective legislation designed to favour the Executive in ongoing litigation in the courts brought against it by one of its citizens, unless there are compelling reasons to do so. Otherwise it is likely to offend a citizen’s sense of fair play" Page 20
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-conte...ers-v-sswp.pdf

The document is wide ranging and doesn't limit itself to Employment Law but also references Land Law in France, and UK Tax Law (i.e. Woolwich Building Soc in 1980s), so it shows that the principles against using retro legislation apply universally.
Next time you correspond with your MP, you might want to reference this.

The fight goes on!