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

[BrilloPad]

So presumably we will all likely get our APN's soon.

I would expect all of us would want the numbers to be confirmed by Montpellier before paying. Do we know if they have the resources to deal with 2000 requests? Maybe they should start the calculations now......

And if they don't have the resources? Suppose WG clears off to Barbados?

[Morlock]

For anyone who is interested in the legal avenues for attacking APNs, which Montpelier will probably follow.

See chapters 6 and 7.

http://www.taxchambers.com/wp-conten...s-Notices3.pdf

Quote:

"In my view, many arrangements which HMRC consider to be “notifiable arrangements” are not in fact such.

What is clear from Condition C is that it is not enough that arrangements have in fact been notified: they must also have been “notifiable arrangements”. That is important, because most people in the past have taken the view that, as honest citizens, they would disclose too much rather than too little and have been entirely above board with the Revenue about what they were doing."

"and to reduce to an acceptable minimum the scope of this legislation, which is more
suited to North Korea than to the United Kingdom"

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Wow! That doc is dynamite!

To be fair, Venables QC is not exactly impartial.

However, you can see there is plenty to chew over in a JR.

There is definite risk for HMRC in issuing us with APNs.

[smalldog]

To be fair, Venables QC is not exactly impartial.

However, you can see there is plenty to chew over in a JR.

There is definite risk for HMRC in issuing us with APNs.

The notifiable bit is very interesting.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

The notifiable bit is very interesting.

When a promoter registered a scheme I doubt HMRC ever asked themselves the question "is this notifiable?". They just accepted the disclosure and issued an SRN. At the time it didn't matter because DOTAS was just a mechanism for (a) getting advance notice of schemes before they were marketed and (b) detecting their use by the presence of an SRN on the self-assessment.

As far as HMRC were concerned, the more schemes that were registered the better, even if they weren't actually notifiable. You could probably have registered virtually anything and HMRC would have issued an SRN.

DOTAS is now being used in a way which was never intended. Now, all of a sudden, it does matter if schemes were notifiable, and HMRC may come unstuck with this.

[BolshieBastard]

Finance Act 2014 Part 4 is the most pernicious attack on the Rule of Law which the Executive, in this case in the guise of HMRC, has bamboozled an ignorant House of Commons into enacting since the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

What a fantastic opening statement!

Doesnt this bulltulip contravene Magna Carta?

[OnYourBikeGB]

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

When a promoter registered a scheme I doubt HMRC ever asked themselves the question "is this notifiable?". They just accepted the disclosure and issued an SRN. At the time it didn't matter because DOTAS was just a mechanism for (a) getting advance notice of schemes before they were marketed and (b) detecting their use by the presence of an SRN on the self-assessment.

As far as HMRC were concerned, the more schemes that were registered the better, even if they weren't actually notifiable. You could probably have registered virtually anything and HMRC would have issued an SRN.

DOTAS is now being used in a way which was never intended. Now, all of a sudden, it does matter if schemes were notifiable, and HMRC may come unstuck with this.

I suspect greed may be their downfall and they deliberately chose notifiable over notified so they could retrospectively apply the legislation to anything they didn't like without fear of losing on appeal. It opened wide the door for huge abuse of power. It's one of the single biggest abuses of democratic rights I have ever come across. Much as the Government has used anti-terrorism laws to eavesdrop on journalists, this seeks to strip individuals of their right to a fair hearing before their peers. I hope it backfires spectacularly.

One other thought, suppose aggressive tax avoidance was defined as the amount that was intended to be saved rather than the use of the law. It would be a fairer definition after all. I doubt Osborne and his £1.4m tax free inheritance, the home flipper Danny Alexander and David Cameron with his mysterious wealth would have been quite so quick to support this vile legislation.

[BolshieBastard]

I suspect greed may be their downfall and they deliberately chose notifiable over notified so they could retrospectively apply the legislation to anything they didn't like without fear of losing on appeal. It opened wide the door for huge abuse of power. It's one of the single biggest abuses of democratic rights I have ever come across. Much as the Government has used anti-terrorism laws to eavesdrop on journalists, this seeks to strip individuals of their right to a fair hearing before their peers. I hope it backfires spectacularly.

The more they legislate, the more loopholes they seem to create! Clearly some 'hmrc silks' as referred to in the document have got ahead of themselves. Hopefully when it does go tits up, some of those 'silks' will find themselves out of their cosy HMRC jobs!

Read it and weep you <mid snip>

[bollox]

APN warning letter received

Anyone else?

[Fireship]

No-one really knows.

It would be absurd if APNs were issued for tax years before DOTAS even existed but this is HMRC we're talking about.

My letter from HMRC only covers 2005 onwards and I was using the planning from the very start. I guess it's safe to assume years pre-dating DOTAS aren't being targeted at this stage....