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

[DonkeyRhubarb]

If these guys win the JR I dont see how this doesnt apply to all APN's, see extract:

'There are several grounds for arguing that the APNs in these cases were unlawful', noted Collins. These include the fact that the absence of a right to appeal is not compatible with human rights legislation. Another possible challenge is that the legislation is retrospective, because it allows HMRC to issue notices against any scheme now registered under the DOTAS (Disclosure of Tax Avoidance Schemes) regime, even if the scheme was begun before the APN rules came into force. - See more at: UK film partnership investors force HMRC to suspend up-front payment notices | STEP

Whilst I wish them luck, it sounds like Huitson S58 all over again. No doubt Pinsent Masons and all the lawyers will feign surprise when the courts rule APNs lawful.

In any case, what they're doing isn't going to stop HMRC continuing to issue and enforce APNs while the JR chugs through the courts.

[webberg]

I agree. Human rights didn't stop the courts ignoring Section 58.
And we think we live in a "civilised" country

This bit of the article link is interesting:

"Another judicial review, which arises from HMRC's inconsistent approach to the issue of tax enquiries, is also due to be heard in March, for which, again, UHY is the instructing accountant. 'If HMRC lose either case it could have far reaching implications for the validity of a large number of APNs', said Avient. "

There are two cases in play about how HMRC deal with enquiries and when years are open.

One is known as Cotter.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-...2_Judgment.pdf

The other is De Silva

http://www.tribunals.gov.uk/financea...oners-HMRC.pdf

It is argued that an HMRC victory in one means a defeat in the other. That is an argument that has not yet been proven and De Silva is due in the Court of Appeal at some point in the future.

Space is too short here to do justice to the nuances but basically the cases turn on how a claim for tax was made (in a return or outside) and the administrative mechanism that HMRC should then apply.

Presently HMRC is 2 and 0 here and is using the decision to justify its settlement demands elsewhere.

[webberg]

Whilst I wish them luck, it sounds like Huitson S58 all over again. No doubt Pinsent Masons and all the lawyers will feign surprise when the courts rule APNs lawful.

In any case, what they're doing isn't going to stop HMRC continuing to issue and enforce APNs while the JR chugs through the courts.

I understand that the JR might be heard in June.

The argument is about whether HMRC is exercising its powers appropriately in relation to APN, i.e. are they the correct body, have they exercised the right rules etc. I think a question aimed at whether an APN is constitutionally valid is not included and as such I doubt that there will be much surprise at a rejection.

[Rhydd]

Times really are tough

Can we print double-sided, so that we can use both of his faces?

Sorry to see that times are so hard that you are now having to use both sides of each sheet of toilet paper...

[BrilloPad]

Whilst I wish them luck, it sounds like Huitson S58 all over again. No doubt Pinsent Masons and all the lawyers will feign surprise when the courts rule APNs lawful.

In any case, what they're doing isn't going to stop HMRC continuing to issue and enforce APNs while the JR chugs through the courts.

Interesting. Will APNs be enforced while the JR goes on?

Our payments were held will challenging S58 to the tp of the chain - and until the tax tribunal process is being exhausted.

I assumed APNs would be irrelevant. As our s58 would get there before APNs. Am I wrong?

[OnYourBikeGB]

Sorry to see that times are so hard that you are now having to use both sides of each sheet of toilet paper...

Well, one must be thrifty these days.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Interesting. Will APNs be enforced while the JR goes on?

Our payments were held will challenging S58 to the tp of the chain - and until the tax tribunal process is being exhausted.

I assumed APNs would be irrelevant. As our s58 would get there before APNs. Am I wrong?

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.

[stonecircle]

..

[sjw]

I posted a message on this threat advocating retrospective taxation when the only purpose of the financial action is to avoid tax. It was censored. Truth too much to bear? What a well rounded discussion forum this is. Freedom to speak as long as it's in favour of extreme tax avoidance.

I give this message 30 minutes. My love to the moderators, I do hope you find a life soon x x

So you would advocate the abolishment of ISA's and the retrospective application of tax then? Or the retrospective application of tax to your pension contributions? There have been some pretty extreme examples of tax avoidance using the latter that have gone completely unchecked.

Had the correct process been followed and a tribunal ruled against us I think the majority on this forum would have taken it in good grace and moved on. We were denied that right hence the action that followed.

Retrospective taxation is not the answer.

[administrator]

I posted a message on this thread advocating retrospective taxation when the only purpose of the financial action was to avoid tax. It was censored. Truth too much to bear? What a well rounded discussion forum this is. Freedom to speak as long as it's in favour of extreme tax avoidance.

And yes I am a contractor (ltd).

I give this message 30 minutes. My love to the moderators, I do hope you find a life soon x x

Sorry, nothing to do with censorship but this is a forum for those affected by these issues. Not a place for those with the benefit of hindsight to come and crow at those affected.