Edge EBT thread

[FHP143]

Encouraging noises?

http://http://www.parliament.uk/busi...get2014report/

Just read the Treasury Committees report on the 2014 budget and it seems like there's some encouraging noises being made. Extract below and link attached, worth reading the part on HMRC's debt recovery powers in the report.

Retrospection:

Retrospective tax legislation conflicts with the principles of tax policy recommended by this Committee. In our Budget 2012 Report we recommended that the Government restrict the use of retrospection to wholly exceptional circumstances. Witnesses told us that the Government was not abiding by this recommendation. Furthermore, the Red Book announced an additional retrospective taxation policy: an extension of the requirement for taxpayers to pay upfront any disputed tax associated with anti-avoidance schemes. This policy will retrospectively apply to some of the 65,000 outstanding tax avoidance cases. There may be a case for this policy but the Government has yet to explain what is wholly exceptional about these cases that justifies this retrospective measure. It should do so in response to this Report. (paragraph 225)

Chairman's comments:

“We have deep reservations about any extension of retrospection in the tax system.

Retrospection runs counter to the Committee’s principles of tax policy. In particular, it undermines certainty. Retrospection should be considered only in wholly exceptional circumstances. The latest measure would have to be justified on those grounds.

Retrospection puts policy on a slippery path to arbitrary taxation, discouraging investment and innovation and creating the scope for great unfairness.”

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Retrospection

The Government have already set out their stall on this.

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...Final_v1.0.pdf

Search for "retrospective"

"2.25 The Government does not agree that the proposals are retrospective. They do not change the underlying tax liability.

3.50 As noted already, this measure affects taxpayers who have used avoidance schemes in the past, but it is not a retrospective change to the substance of the issue. The measure creates a new and prospective obligation after Royal Assent and relates to who holds the money during the dispute, rather than whether the tax scheme is effective or not.

4.7 The Government rejects the contention that this is retrospective legislation. Whilst it imposes a new obligation on certain taxpayers that they did not expect when they entered into these schemes, the Government is not changing the legislation that determines whether the scheme used is effective."

[IPMAN]

The Government have already set out their stall on this.

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...Final_v1.0.pdf

Search for "retrospective"

"2.25 The Government does not agree that the proposals are retrospective. They do not change the underlying tax liability.

3.50 As noted already, this measure affects taxpayers who have used avoidance schemes in the past, but it is not a retrospective change to the substance of the issue. The measure creates a new and prospective obligation after Royal Assent and relates to who holds the money during the dispute, rather than whether the tax scheme is effective or not.

4.7 The Government rejects the contention that this is retrospective legislation. Whilst it imposes a new obligation on certain taxpayers that they did not expect when they entered into these schemes, the Government is not changing the legislation that determines whether the scheme used is effective."

The post above from FHP143 seems to suggest this is not a done deal, but this one is saying it is a done deal. Am I reading this right here or what?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

The post above from FHP143 seems to suggest this is not a done deal, but this one is saying it is a done deal. Am I reading this right here or what?

What do you mean by "done deal"? The legislation has still got to be passed by Parliament.

The point I was making is that, in response to the Treasury Committee, the Government are going to claim that it's not retrospective legislation. Hopefully the Committee will see through their weasel words.

[varunksingh]

What do you mean by "done deal"? The legislation has still got to be passed by Parliament.

The point I was making is that, in response to the Treasury Committee, the Government are going to claim that it's not retrospective legislation. Hopefully the Committee will see through their weasel words.

DR government response that it is not retrospective was before the Treasury Committee etc start to discuss. In the hearing it is clear that many are not agreeing that is not retrospective. Government kind of showed the middle finger to the response in consultation but they cannot do the same to Treasury Committee.

[varunksingh]

It is all down to meeting our local MP

Here you go
[Committee name]

if enough people go and meeting their MPs, we might be able to get this watered down for sure. But based on activity around, I don't feel many are knocking on the doors of their MPs - don't know lazy or ignorance but it is potentially going to cost them and me dearly

[DonkeyRhubarb]

DR government response that it is not retrospective was before the Treasury Committee etc start to discuss. In the hearing it is clear that many are not agreeing that is not retrospective. Government kind of showed the middle finger to the response in consultation but they cannot do the same to Treasury Committee.

The Treasury Committee is a very influential committee but do not underestimate the power of the Government to steamroller legislation through no matter how much criticism it gets.

The Government will spin and twist the facts to get what they want. They are masters at being economical with the truth.

[Dylan]

http://http://www.parliament.uk/busi...get2014report/

Just read the Treasury Committees report on the 2014 budget and it seems like there's some encouraging noises being made. Extract below and link attached, worth reading the part on HMRC's debt recovery powers in the report.

Retrospection:

Retrospective tax legislation conflicts with the principles of tax policy recommended by this Committee. In our Budget 2012 Report we recommended that the Government restrict the use of retrospection to wholly exceptional circumstances. Witnesses told us that the Government was not abiding by this recommendation. Furthermore, the Red Book announced an additional retrospective taxation policy: an extension of the requirement for taxpayers to pay upfront any disputed tax associated with anti-avoidance schemes. This policy will retrospectively apply to some of the 65,000 outstanding tax avoidance cases. There may be a case for this policy but the Government has yet to explain what is wholly exceptional about these cases that justifies this retrospective measure. It should do so in response to this Report. (paragraph 225)

Chairman's comments:

“We have deep reservations about any extension of retrospection in the tax system.

Retrospection runs counter to the Committee’s principles of tax policy. In particular, it undermines certainty. Retrospection should be considered only in wholly exceptional circumstances. The latest measure would have to be justified on those grounds.

Retrospection puts policy on a slippery path to arbitrary taxation, discouraging investment and innovation and creating the scope for great unfairness.”

Link not working - can you check it please?

[eek]

Link not working - can you check it please?

it continually moves so its a pointless request. I did read the original report and those things are a direct quotes from it.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Link not working - can you check it please?

Treasury Committee publishes report on 2014 Budget - News from Parliament - UK Parliament