BN66 - Time to fight back: Continued

[Ratican]

Conservatives

It sounds pretty uncommitted to be honest. I have received replies from Colin Breed, David Gauke and Philip Hammond (members of the Treasury Select Committee / Finance Bill Committee) and a reply on behalf of the Chancellor and Financial secretary from somebody at HMRC who is a member of the responsible team in HM Revenue and Customs ().
None of the Conservatives have responded very positively to my direct question asking whether they would reverse the legislation when they take power. E.g. "I am afraid that, with the public finances in the state they are, we are unable to make any firm promises to reverse this legislation once in office"- however I think that lobbying the conservatives on this may well be sensible and productive. It could even be to their benefit in the run-up to the General Election.
I think that somebody here wrote to David Cameron recently - any response yet. I think that some of us should try to set up a meeting (or something at least) with some Conservative policy makers to outline our position/concerns and see if they have any suggestions or are willing to do anything.
Anybody in London up for it as well???

[poppy01]

None of the Conservatives have responded very positively to my direct question asking whether they would reverse the legislation when they take power. E.g. "I am afraid that, with the public finances in the state they are, we are unable to make any firm promises to reverse this legislation once in office"-

I fail to see what the state of the public finances has to do with the violation of my human rights

[Emigre]

I had a reply from my MP - it says

.................................................. .........................
Thanks for your letter….

Please be assured that conservatives have been proactive in addressing the concerns surrounding this particular aspect of the 2008 finance act.

During debates on the legislation the shadow exchequer secretary challenged the retrospective nature of clause 55 stating ‘ the amendments contained in the clause are to be traded as always having had effect . either the law exists or it doesn’t’

Jayne Kennedy, the financial secretary to the treasury responded for the Gov by saying that the changes were a clarification of the law and a re ‘fair, proportionate and in the public interest’

The debate was lengthy and wide ranging. Should you want to read a full text you can go to… and it gives a web link of the transcript

And thanks me again for writing.

If this is a stock answer from the Tories at best it is limp, at worst pathetic. Over the last 10 years we've become accustomed to Govt being corrupt, self-servient, deceitful, discriminatory, and anti-family. One of the reasons for looking at and considering the Tory Party as an option is the prospect of change. Responses like the above do nothing towards compelling me to vote for them. Change is change. Section 55 of Finance Act 2008 contravenes Human Rights Act.

Dear Tories - Wake up, smell the roses. If you want to be seen to be different from the lawbreaking scum in office now put your heads above the parapet, be seen to want to resolve flagrant injustice, be seen to want to resolve the current economic malaise of businesses and enrepreneurs fleeing the UK for some fair and reasonable levels of taxation in the more certain climates offered by the like of Ireland, offer real solutions to the credit crisis instead of the too little too late that Brown and Darling are struggling to conjure.

[BrilloPad]

It sounds pretty uncommitted to be honest. I have received replies from Colin Breed, David Gauke and Philip Hammond (members of the Treasury Select Committee / Finance Bill Committee) and a reply on behalf of the Chancellor and Financial secretary from somebody at HMRC who is a member of the responsible team in HM Revenue and Customs ().
None of the Conservatives have responded very positively to my direct question asking whether they would reverse the legislation when they take power. E.g. "I am afraid that, with the public finances in the state they are, we are unable to make any firm promises to reverse this legislation once in office"- however I think that lobbying the conservatives on this may well be sensible and productive. It could even be to their benefit in the run-up to the General Election.
I think that somebody here wrote to David Cameron recently - any response yet. I think that some of us should try to set up a meeting (or something at least) with some Conservative policy makers to outline our position/concerns and see if they have any suggestions or are willing to do anything.
Anybody in London up for it as well???

Any idea how to go about this? I would love to give it a go!

[Ratican]

Well - I don't really have much experience in anything like this - although I'd be quite happy to go for it and find out as I go along. First thing would be to get some advice (and maybe help) from my MP (Susan Cramer) - I have sent her 2 email on this subject - but so far no reply in 5 weeks. I'll try to arrange to meet her at her constituency office.

BTW - as I said I'm no expert - but I would think that unless there was a party policy made - no MP - Conservative or otherwise would be able to make a statement/promise like "yes we will amend the legislation..." unless it has been discussed and debated. I guess they could get into a lot of trouble if they did make statements like that without the proper backup.

My gut feeling is that although they are/were against the retrospective aspect of the clause - as it is now law "made up" by the labour party - it won't be their problem when they are in office and the dust may have settled by then. Definitely worth a try though - it is just possible that they do feel strongly about the negative message this legislation puts out and will want to correct it for the long-term stability of the country as a place to work/do business.

Anybody else got any ideas??

[Ratican]

Responses from Politicians / HMRC "responsible person"

If anybody wants me to send them the responses I got from the people mentioned - PM me...

[DonkeyRhubarb]

My gut feeling is that although they are/were against the retrospective aspect of the clause - as it is now law "made up" by the labour party - it won't be their problem when they are in office and the dust may have settled by then.

Exactly. Just like Labour said they were opposed to Union legislation introduced by Thatcher's government but didn't touch it when they got into office. It is very rare for a new government to undo the sins of past adminstrations, especially something as marginal as BN66. Personally, I can't see them re-visiting it.

IMO, our best chance of re-igniting interest is when the JR kicks off and all the embarassing details of HMRC/Treasury's handling of this affair over the past 5 years come to light. If the verdict is as scathing as we hope then the opposition parties may latch on to it.

[Emigre]

I had a reply from my MP - it says

.................................................. .........................
Thanks for your letter….

Please be assured that conservatives have been proactive in addressing the concerns surrounding this particular aspect of the 2008 finance act.

During debates on the legislation the shadow exchequer secretary challenged the retrospective nature of clause 55 stating ‘ the amendments contained in the clause are to be traded as always having had effect . either the law exists or it doesn’t’

Jayne Kennedy, the financial secretary to the treasury responded for the Gov by saying that the changes were a clarification of the law and a re ‘fair, proportionate and in the public interest’

The debate was lengthy and wide ranging. Should you want to read a full text you can go to… and it gives a web link of the transcript

And thanks me again for writing.

SO what dioes everyoen think ......... does this mean we did what we could but wont be helping you any more or have I misread that and the 'please be assured' para means they are still going at it? wht does anyone think

I had a response from Sir Paul Beresford MP (Mole Valley), who from our PM is different to your MP, using identical words. Clearly the Tories have drafted a party response to the issues of BN66 and s55 FA2008. My original letter also discussed the earlier background to Montpelier and IR35. His response is below:

"Turning to IR35, I appreciate that it overlaps with other areas of legislation and creates difficulties in interpretation. It has meant that many small businesses have to review areas of the regulations, even if they do not believe they are affected. Conservatives voted against its introduction in 2000.

{para on general regulatory burden on business}

Conservatives are determined to make it easier to do business in the UK and recognise that small businesses are the engine room of our economy. Government should encourage more people to aspire to be their own bosses and should support them in that aspiration.

To avoid the uncertainty that has surrounded the majority of Labour's recent tax changes, George Osborne MP, the Shadow Chancellor has pledged that the next Conservative Government will carry out any tax reforms using four basic principles: efficiency, certainty, transparency, and fairness. To this end, he has pledged to publish major technical changes to the tax system at least six months before they are introduced."

For those that are interested, those 4 basic principles are the same principles given by Adam Smith in "The Wealth of Nations" published in the 18th century.

Bottom line here is that no political party will be happy with the economic impact of aggressive tax avoidance schemes. However, some parties are prepared to, quietly at least, accept that people and businesses should be able to structure their affairs in accordance with the law(s) prevailing at the time with certainty of consequence. the question here is whether we are going to be robbed before any changes in tax law can be made.

[SantaClaus]

Any idea how to go about this? I would love to give it a go!

Thats a really good idea. I would attend.

Have already written to George Osborne. Awaiting reply.

Have also sent a letter to my local MEP who happens to be the Liberal spokeswoman for human rights. Will be interested to hear what she says from the human rights angle.

[poppy01]

George Osborne MP, the Shadow Chancellor has pledged that the next Conservative Government will carry out any tax reforms using four basic principles: efficiency, certainty, transparency, and fairness. To this end, he has pledged to publish major technical changes to the tax system at least six months before they are introduced."[/COLOR]

Heres a thought, since BN66 is itself a retrospective change to the law, could George Osborne at some time in the future anul BN66 thus making the law that applies now the original law, and making HMRC liable to pay us back anything they take from us now (PLUS INTEREST) , since HMRC's actions will then become retrospectively unlawful. Wishful thinking I know, but still a lovely idea.