BN66 - Time to fight back!!!

[BrilloPad]

I have now written to my MP. I will let you all know what reply I get.

[malvolio]

Originally Posted by BrilloPad

I have now written to my MP. I will let you all know what reply I get.

I think I could make a good guess...

"Dear Mr BrilloPad's MP

Thank you for your letter from your consituent Mr BrilloPad. It is the nature of government to apply laws fairly under all circumstances. This law has been unfairly applied so some have been able to benefit. This isn't fair, so we're changing things so they can't, and fining them for having done so. Tell him he's stuffed, we don't care, we're the Governement and we do what we like.

Regards
H M Treasury Junior Minister"

Well that's what it will mean, anyway. The wording may be a little different.

[IR35 Avoider]

Originally Posted by dude69

The government are not stating they have changed the law, they have clarified the correct interpretation of it.

No. "clarifying the correct interpretion" is exactly the same thing as changing the law. If it weren't, it would have no effect, and the Montpelier people wouldn't have anything (new) to worry about. They are changing the meaning of the words that describe what was and wasn't legal to do when people were making decisions in 1987, 1988, 1989... etc. They are making this change in 2008.

That means people who did not have time machines, or who consulted lawyers who did not have time machines, are screwed, through no fault of their own. (I could give you the names of two eminent lawyers, one a QC, who said at the time this loophole worked. One of them changed his mind two years later, as far as I know the other didn't. Neither own time machines.)

(Hint: both names appear in this list. Pump Court Chambers)

Basically what the government are saying is "what you did may have been arguably legal (though we disagree) but instead of taking you to court and let a judge decide whether you obeyed the rules, we are just going to change the rules, and the new rules will apply not just to what you do in future but to what you did before we changed them to say what they now say."

"Clarify" is government spin. It's english (honest) translation is "change."

[BrilloPad]

Originally Posted by malvolio

I think I could make a good guess...

"Dear Mr BrilloPad's MP

Thank you for your letter from your consituent Mr BrilloPad. It is the nature of government to apply laws fairly under all circumstances. This law has been unfairly applied so some have been able to benefit. This isn't fair, so we're changing things so they can't, and fining them for having done so. Tell him he's stuffed, we don't care, we're the Governement and we do what we like.

Regards
H M Treasury Junior Minister"

Well that's what it will mean, anyway. The wording may be a little different.

lol - sounds like when I wrote to my MP about f4j. All of f4j got almost identical replies - and it was written by a spin doctor rather than a junior minister.

[malvolio]

Precisely my point. A "cynic" is what an optimist calls a realist.

This cause is doomed, IMHO: there are too many get-out clauses for HMG, there's no benefit to the country as a whole, it affects a tiny number of people and they have no representation or backup. Doesn't make it right (or wrong), but it's going nowhere.

[cailin maith]

Originally Posted by malvolio

Hate to throw cold water on things, but (a) the Treasury Committee will not accept submissions from people it hasn't asked for submissions, much less take any notice of them and (b) their line is that this is not retrospective legislation anyway, it's the same legislation correctly applied and it's hardly their fault if people chose to misinterpret what was a badly drafted clause (OK, they should have complained a lot sooner, but until recently they hadn't bankrupted the country).

There is a case to be made of course and you're right to fight it, but yours will be a small voice in the overall scheme of things.

I think you are mistaken Mal, although I am sure (as usual) you will insist you are right - I have notes someplace on a treasury committee meeting which says that they don't understand why HMRC didn't do anything about the loophole sooner... I will post a link when I am out of holiday mode - tuesday probably

[malvolio]

Not what I said, but never mind.

The reason they're doing it now is (a) they have no money left and need everything they can find, (b) they're past caring what people think of them and (c) it's been highlighted on the back of their general attack on independent freelances and to date they had never noticed it.

And I'm not saying they're right or wrong, I'm merely pointing out their line of defence - which is what you will have to defeat if you want to retain the current interpretation. It's a game of chess, not a reasoned debate.

[BrilloPad]

Originally Posted by malvolio

Not what I said, but never mind.

The reason they're doing it now is (a) they have no money left and need everything they can find, (b) they're past caring what people think of them and (c) it's been highlighted on the back of their general attack on independent freelances and to date they had never noticed it.

And I'm not saying they're right or wrong, I'm merely pointing out their line of defence - which is what you will have to defeat if you want to retain the current interpretation. It's a game of chess, not a reasoned debate.

I dont feel that HMRC are playing chess - more like taking people behind the bike sheds for a duffing up.

[zippo]

Hey Guy's,

Any body have any more info or is it just time for waiting ?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Any body have any more info or is it just time for waiting?

I haven't heard anything, and I don't think there's much we can do now other than wait to see if the retrospective legislation gets passed. I am tracking the progress of the bill using the following link, and I reckon we will know by the end of June.

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/...8/finance.html

Keep an eye on this thread as I will update it if there are any important developments.