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

[freedomFighter2014]

Follower notices

Yeah just read this too. Great news as it means less of stick to poke those of us that may have been caught up in the EBTs too.

So I presume that a reverse follower notice applies, any scheme that is loans based cannot be pursued.
Wishful thinking....

[orientalist]

Ctd

Received a delightful letter from those wonderful people at hmrc advising that the ctd I purchased will cease to gain interest next from month as I will have had it for 6 years.

Now this is perfectly aligned with hmrc practice and process that gives them a woefully short 6 years to look back at and resolve anything that has been transparently declared via SA's.

Clearly the perfectly proportionate and well thought through S58, was so well understood and assessed at the time it was introduced that those splendid policy makers will already have clear and tested guidance for us all covering these minor time travel irritations

[freedomFighter2014]

We know they're cronies already

Plus 10000 to this idea.

Hmm, don't we all know that they're cronies, exempt tax avoiders, expense scroungers, multimillionaires who never did a hard days job in their lives already. The public don't seem to want to object to the parallels & double standards etc

[BrilloPad]

Hmm, don't we all know that they're cronies, exempt tax avoiders, expense scroungers, multimillionaires who never did a hard days job in their lives already. The public don't seem to want to object to the parallels & double standards etc

AS long as the mob get their cheap booze, flat screen TVs and football, then they are happy.

[bananarepublic]

Received a delightful letter from those wonderful people at hmrc advising that the ctd I purchased will cease to gain interest next from month as I will have had it for 6 years.

Now this is perfectly aligned with hmrc practice and process that gives them a woefully short 6 years to look back at and resolve anything that has been transparently declared via SA's.

Clearly the perfectly proportionate and well thought through S58, was so well understood and assessed at the time it was introduced that those splendid policy makers will already have clear and tested guidance for us all covering these minor time travel irritations

You only get interest between the date you purchased the CTD and when the tax originally became due. The tax is due when it would have been paid *IF* there had been no DTA claim. So pre-APN's whether your CTD gets interest or not is pretty irrelevant - unless we win the case.

Where it gets interesting is if we are issued APN's and they cannot be settled with a CTD. Effectively you will have to encash the CTD to pay the APN. Therein lies the problem - you will lose any protection against accrued interest HMRC may deign to charge later.

The six year deadline is clearly articulated in the CTD prospectus. Shame HMRC are on the cusp of dishonouring them.

[freedomFighter2014]

Digging For Dirt

Are you, like us, among the 43,000 people targeted by the new retrospective Accelerated Payment rules?

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...harged-by-hmrc

Do you also, like us, want pay back?

Our mission is to expose the hypocritical, sanctimonious perpetrators of this. Government ministers, MPs who voted for it and senior HMRC/Treasury officials.

We will be hiring private investigators, freelance journalists and forensic accountants to dig for dirt:

• financial/tax affairs
• sex, drugs, alcohol
• skeletons in the family closet
• any other shenanigans

Our target is to raise £2million to finance the mother of all campaigns against them (£100 from 20,000 people)

Please donate what you can.

We may not be able to get justice for you, or prevent people facing financial hardship, but we are determined to make those in authority responsible for this pay.

Count me in

[freedomFighter2014]

Probably not but they'd report the story, especially if we hired freelance journos.

I know it sounds impossible to take on the establishment but 43,000 people is a (financial) force to be reckoned with.

I may have been watching too many American lawyer shows, but could we collect the money for a class action?

[bananarepublic]

And like a mug, to be safe and transparent, I insisted that it be on my AR, even though I was on the scheme before that. I didn't know that it was unnecessary, and wasn't told that either. I just noticed it wasn't on the return and asked that it be added. Which is another anomaly, can I get an APN simply because I used a DOTAS number or does using the scheme before 2004 exempt me? No doubt HMRC have taken this all into consideration, and have some clear guidance to offer ...

I've read through the 2014 FA as it pertains to APN's and I reckon that HMRC can issue APN's for anyone that used a DOTAS registered scheme for tax years 04/05 onwards. So whether or not you put an SRN on the return or joined the scheme pre 2004 is irrelevant. I'm no lawyer but it seemed pretty unambigous to me. I hope I am wrong.

The definition of a DOTAS scheme in 2014 FA does not have the exclusions that the original 2004 FA had in relation to the requirement to register the scheme. The only thing I don't think they can do is issue an APN for anything pre 04/05 because "notifiable arrangements" did not exist prior to this date. (they can issue a follower notice though).

Montpelier should never have registered the scheme - there was no requirement for them to do so - if I read 2004 FA correctly.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I've read through the 2014 FA as it pertains to APN's and I reckon that HMRC can issue APN's for anyone that used a DOTAS registered scheme for tax years 04/05 onwards. So whether or not you put an SRN on the return or joined the scheme pre 2004 is irrelevant. I'm no lawyer but it seemed pretty unambigous to me. I hope I am wrong.

The definition of a DOTAS scheme in 2014 FA does not have the exclusions that the original 2004 FA had in relation to the requirement to register the scheme. The only thing I don't think they can do is issue an APN for anything pre 04/05 because "notifiable arrangements" did not exist prior to this date. (they can issue a follower notice though).

Montpelier should never have registered the scheme - there was no requirement for them to do so - if I read 2004 FA correctly.

We would concur with this.

As far as we know, Montpelier was the only promoter who registered the DTA (BN66) scheme. However, the other schemes could still face APNs by virtue of Montpelier's registration.

The same situation could apply with EBTs where some promoters registered and others didn't.

Overriding all this is that HMRC will probably argue that all schemes after 2004 should have been notified.

[orientalist]

Whs

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both - Benjamin Franklin.