Forthcoming General Election - send a message to the Chancellor NOW ...

[malvolio]

I may be wrong but the legal start point for what is seen as retrospection is Dec 2008 when HMRC via the Autumn Statement said that as of this point all "schemes" (define as you will) will be subject to review. That would have been planned over the preceding 12 months at a minimum (there were plenty of signs it was coming throughout the year). The actual prosecution of that decision kicked off much later, I agree, after HMRC had started their data capture but it was a Labour-led initiative; all the Tories did was not refuse to enact something that was already well in train.

I object to the whole concept of retrospection in taxation as much as anyone, but let's at least remember who's fault it was.

[webberg]

Unpopular though the view is, aside from section 58 FA 2008 which was introduced to counter a specific offshore based structure, there has been NO RETROSPECTION.

I'm not trying to minimise the impact of APN but it's not retrospective LAW.

It applies from sometime in 2014 and says that if tax is in dispute at that date, then HMG will hold it until the dispute is resolved.

The big lie from HMRC that got this approved was that it is taxpayers holding up agreement of dispute when in fact it was more likely HMRC.

The big challenge is to get HMRC into Court as quickly as possible if they hold the money. You can guarantee that they will use every trick they can to delay cases they might lose.

I think I had a group of clients in this situation (and who knows, I might), I'd call it Sisyphus.

[ads1980]

For a Conservative government to legislate so vindictively has been a major shocker to many . Don't buy into this coming from the liberals, but Gauke's hands are all over it. And to think his previous job was in tax planning. To bring about legislation in a fair-minded democracy is to make legislation law from a date in the future, so people can make arrangements, that has always been the case in the past. Its shockingly unfair legislation and it has the Tories dirty hands all over it.




They will NEVER get my vote again.

As I've already said, my local MP is a conservative and when I first contacted him about all of this he might as well have told me to f'off. The seat in my local constituency is very close and the cons won it by 1000 votes last time. So the only other party in my area that can win are the lib dems. I am voting for them purely to get mr arse conservative out of his seat not because I think it will make any difference if the cons aren't in power. I think we are too far down the line now to change any of this.

[dangerouswhensober]

As I've already said, my local MP is a conservative and when I first contacted him about all of this he might as well have told me to f'off. The seat in my local constituency is very close and the cons won it by 1000 votes last time. So the only other party in my area that can win are the lib dems. I am voting for them purely to get mr arse conservative out of his seat not because I think it will make any difference if the cons aren't in power. I think we are too far down the line now to change any of this.

That's the spirit !

It seems to me that, in your constituency, if you vote LibDem, there might be enough UKIP/LibDem defectors amongst the current Cons 1000 majority to unseat the sitting Cons MP ...

Of course the ultimate target is Mr Gauke - as the prime architect and facilitator of this persecution. It's probably too much to ask that he gets the boot as an MP (his last majority was ~15,000), but he must lose his position as 'Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury' if a Labour-led coalition comes to power (and, obviously, so would Osborne, the other ring-leader). Gauke could also be out if a Conservative-led coalition takes power - it would depend on the strength of the coalition partners in requiring positions post-election.

BTW - My friends do reassure me that I'm not normally a vindictive person ...

[ads1980]

That's the spirit !

It seems to me that, in your constituency, if you vote LibDem, there might be enough UKIP/LibDem defectors amongst the current Cons 1000 majority to unseat the sitting Cons MP ...

Of course the ultimate target is Mr Gauke - as the prime architect and facilitator of this persecution. It's probably too much to ask that he gets the boot as an MP (his last majority was ~15,000), but he must lose his position as 'Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury' if a Labour-led coalition comes to power (and, obviously, so would Osborne, the other ring-leader). Gauke could also be out if a Conservative-led coalition takes power - it would depend on the strength of the coalition partners in requiring positions post-election.

BTW - My friends do reassure me that I'm not normally a vindictive person ...

I'm not vindictive either! Haha

It's very close. 1000 votes is nothing. In 2005 it was a whitewash for libdems so nothing is certain this time round. This is the first time I've really taken a keen interest in voting. So I hope it pays off

[DotasScandal]

The big lie from HMRC that got this approved was that it is taxpayers holding up agreement of dispute when in fact it was more likely HMRC.

Gauke's other lie to the Finance Committee that got this approved : that everyone was cool with the principle of APNs and that only a handful of ultra-rich would be "inconvenienced".
See https://www.dotas-scandal.org/gauke-...n-the-process/

[StrengthInNumbers]

Unpopular though the view is, aside from section 58 FA 2008 which was introduced to counter a specific offshore based structure, there has been NO RETROSPECTION.

When entering a Dotas scheme was tax payer aware disputed tax as per HMRC understanding will have to be paid upfront?
No. So why is it not retrospective?

[DotasScandal]

When entering a Dotas scheme was tax payer aware disputed tax as per HMRC understanding will have to be paid upfront?
No. So why is it not retrospective?

Apparently, HMRC issued enquiries routinely to most taxpayers having declared a DOTAS srn on their return. And apparently, "open enquiry"="a dispute" (even if HMRC then sits on their hands for 10 years doing nothing ). According to this logic, it's not retrospective as the dispute has existed for years.

Yes, I know: not exactly intuitive.

[StrengthInNumbers]

Not arguing that and dispute can continue but paying upfront is a law that is being applied retrospectively to disputes open from before.

[webberg]

When entering a Dotas scheme was tax payer aware disputed tax as per HMRC understanding will have to be paid upfront?
No. So why is it not retrospective?

I would have said that the mere fact a DOTAS registration was considered necessary should have been enough to at least put you on notice that your scheme was not risk free.

You also have to distinguish between retrospective LAW and retrospective EFFECT.

The APN regime produces a retrospective effect in that money you held is now to be held by another but only after a certain date, in this case the payment date of the APN.

Something like s 58 is retrospective LAW because it says that from a date earlier than the law was made, it will have effect.

I'm not going to mention this any more because clearly it's an unpopular message.