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

[OneUnited]

Out of interest how many of our "new" joiners haven't signed this:

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitio...-retrospective

Feel free to share.

Its a bit ironic I received an email last week from 38Degrees asking me to sign a petition re -

Last week, George Osborne claimed that tackling tax dodging isn’t his job. But he’s the Chancellor of the Exchequer: he’s in charge of our economy. This week, he’s already started to backtrack, talking up his promises to fine tax dodgers
.....
So let’s build a huge public petition demanding he closes this ‘Mayfair loophole’. The petition is already past 130,000. Every signature helps embarrass George Osborne.

I think the number shows how public opinion has been manipulated - Tax avoidance = Tax Evasion

[BolshieBastard]

Its a bit ironic I received an email last week from 38Degrees asking me to sign a petition re -

Last week, George Osborne claimed that tackling tax dodging isn’t his job. But he’s the Chancellor of the Exchequer: he’s in charge of our economy. This week, he’s already started to backtrack, talking up his promises to fine tax dodgers
.....
So let’s build a huge public petition demanding he closes this ‘Mayfair loophole’. The petition is already past 130,000. Every signature helps embarrass George Osborne.

I think the number shows how public opinion has been manipulated - Tax avoidance = Tax Evasion

Agreed and, people are flipping hypocrites.

Earlier this week, the wail carried a story how you could avoid higher train fares by using a site that took advantage of a ticketing loophole. This is where instead of buying a ticket for your journey, its often cheaper to buy multiple tickets that cover your route. This frequently makes the multiple tickets cheaper than a single or return.

Lots of people added comments saying what a jolly good wheeze using that loophole, what?

So I commented that people were ok to use this ticketing loophole to avoid the correct and 'fair share' of rail travel costs just the same as it was ok to use loopholes in the tax system to legally avoid paying tax.

Of course joe public didnt like that stating the rail companies rip them off with fares so it was fair game and besides, tax was different.

[OnYourBikeGB]

Agreed and, people are flipping hypocrites.

Earlier this week, the wail carried a story how you could avoid higher train fares by using a site that took advantage of a ticketing loophole. This is where instead of buying a ticket for your journey, its often cheaper to buy multiple tickets that cover your route. This frequently makes the multiple tickets cheaper than a single or return.

Lots of people added comments saying what a jolly good wheeze using that loophole, what?

So I commented that people were ok to use this ticketing loophole to avoid the correct and 'fair share' of rail travel costs just the same as it was ok to use loopholes in the tax system to legally avoid paying tax.

Of course joe public didnt like that stating the rail companies rip them off with fares so it was fair game and besides, tax was different.

Never mind the fact that George Osborne and his family set up offshore trust funds to avoid paying inheritance tax, a saving of £1.6m. What I don't understand is how the relatively small amount I saved is considered 'aggressive tax avoidance' while his saving of £1.6m is not. Even trying to find the story on the web takes a few searches. We've gone round this circle before, but it makes a mockery of 'paying your fair share' and 'moral repugnance'. How can he possibly point a finger at anyone as he deprived the public purse of much more than any of us yet he stands up there, when his eyes aren't rolling in his head, as the nation's moral guardian. Maybe he should go back to partying with hookers and leave the morality lectures for someone else.

[smalldog]

Cue Armageddon music...............
My APN warning landed on the mat this morning. Gives 1-8 weeks as the delivery window and lists individual years that I have under appeal. It also identifies what I believe may be the DOTAS Scheme number.

This surreal nightmare is becoming very real and threatening.

Im expecting mine to drop through the door today/tomorrow...Nice surprise for the weekend. Still not sure if I should reply or not, who is doing what as there doesnt appear to be a definitive

[BrilloPad]

Cue Armageddon music...............
My APN warning landed on the mat this morning. Gives 1-8 weeks as the delivery window and lists individual years that I have under appeal. It also identifies what I believe may be the DOTAS Scheme number.

This surreal nightmare is becoming very real and threatening.

I think armeggadan will have to wait another 3 years.

Ignore the warning. Send the APN onto montp when it arrives(DR gave the email addresses before). It will be appealed. JR for APN.

I reckon next big evwent is UTTT in October 2015.

[BolshieBastard]

Never mind the fact that George Osborne and his family set up offshore trust funds to avoid paying inheritance tax, a saving of £1.6m. What I don't understand is how the relatively small amount I saved is considered 'aggressive tax avoidance' while his saving of £1.6m is not. Even trying to find the story on the web takes a few searches. We've gone round this circle before, but it makes a mockery of 'paying your fair share' and 'moral repugnance'. How can he possibly point a finger at anyone as he deprived the public purse of much more than any of us yet he stands up there, when his eyes aren't rolling in his head, as the nation's moral guardian. Maybe he should go back to partying with hookers and leave the morality lectures for someone else.

Spot on and that's something else that anoys me. Apparently there's tax avoidance, aggressive tax avoidance and tax evasion.

So how can someone avoiding say, £1.6m not be 'aggressive avoidance' yet someone avoiding <=£150k be 'aggressive'?

[Hmmmmm]

APN Warning Letter

I don't post here just read and subscribe to NTRT, but I thought I would mention this. I received my 1- 8 week warning the other day. It clearly says to call if you can't pay so I thought I would so they have it on record.

The person I spoke to didn't seem to have a clue what I was talking about and after a little time on hold they came back to inform me that I will have to wait for the APN then contact collections to discuss. I asked what they would do as it clearly told me to call on the letter. Was told they can't do anything but will put a note on my file.

(Note to Hector - A little more staff training would probably help)

Didn't expect any more from them, but why put that in the letter in the first place other than to say in court that they were fair and gave us the option to get in touch. I assume there must be a rule somewhere that says they must put this in, but maybe not one saying they have to do anything with the contact.

When the APN comes it will go to MP and fingers crossed the JR will halt the process, but if anyone if thinking whether to call and say they can't pay I would say do it. What harm can it do? My view is if we get to the day I have to discuss this with collection I can honestly say I made contact at the earliest opportunity, now can I have 10 years to repay please?

[eek]

I don't post here just read and subscribe to NTRT, but I thought I would mention this. I received my 1- 8 week warning the other day. It clearly says to call if you can't pay so I thought I would so they have it on record.

The person I spoke to didn't seem to have a clue what I was talking about and after a little time on hold they came back to inform me that I will have to wait for the APN then contact collections to discuss. I asked what they would do as it clearly told me to call on the letter. Was told they can't do anything but will put a note on my file.

(Note to Hector - A little more staff training would probably help)

Didn't expect any more from them, but why put that in the letter in the first place other than to say in court that they were fair and gave us the option to get in touch. I assume there must be a rule somewhere that says they must put this in, but maybe not one saying they have to do anything with the contact.

When the APN comes it will go to MP and fingers crossed the JR will halt the process, but if anyone if thinking whether to call and say they can't pay I would say do it. What harm can it do? My view is if we get to the day I have to discuss this with collection I can honestly say I made contact at the earliest opportunity, now can I have 10 years to repay please?

Keep a record of who you spoke to and a record of the phone bill showing the call being made... You never know when you may need it...

[Morlock]

I don't post here just read and subscribe to NTRT, but I thought I would mention this. I received my 1- 8 week warning the other day. It clearly says to call if you can't pay so I thought I would so they have it on record.

The person I spoke to didn't seem to have a clue what I was talking about and after a little time on hold they came back to inform me that I will have to wait for the APN then contact collections to discuss. I asked what they would do as it clearly told me to call on the letter. Was told they can't do anything but will put a note on my file.

(Note to Hector - A little more staff training would probably help)

Didn't expect any more from them, but why put that in the letter in the first place other than to say in court that they were fair and gave us the option to get in touch. I assume there must be a rule somewhere that says they must put this in, but maybe not one saying they have to do anything with the contact.

When the APN comes it will go to MP and fingers crossed the JR will halt the process, but if anyone if thinking whether to call and say they can't pay I would say do it. What harm can it do? My view is if we get to the day I have to discuss this with collection I can honestly say I made contact at the earliest opportunity, now can I have 10 years to repay please?

If you want to put it on record you should write a letter rather than making a phone call.

[lilikins1]

If you mean the JR launched by Pincents on behalf of film scheme investors. That won't stop HMRC enforcing APNs.

If Montpelier do their own JR then they may be able to prevent APNs being enforced.

It's all a bit in the air at the moment.

When will you know if Montpellier JR action will prevent APNs being enforced? Is this something that a judge will rule or that a lawyer can advise if the fight can be an overarching one?