BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[normalbloke]

Reply from David Cameron MP

I posted off one of DR's excellent letters (the five point one) to my MP (David Cameron). His reply was that he is writing to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (our mate Mr Timms) to raise the five points directly with him.

He will be in touch when he has received his response.. (which I imagine won't be soon, or receive direct answers to any of the points.)

Anyway.. lets keep chipping away.. at least David Cameron can't be brushed off as an opposition political lightweight!

NB

[poppy01]

I posted off one of DR's excellent letters (the five point one) to my MP (David Cameron). His reply was that he is writing to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (our mate Mr Timms) to raise the five points directly with him.

He will be in touch when he has received his response.. (which I imagine won't be soon, or receive direct answers to any of the points.)

Anyway.. lets keep chipping away.. at least David Cameron can't be brushed off as an opposition political lightweight!

NB

write him again, since his party tabled amendments which were ridden over on division, would he consider repealing the law when in power, next year... god I CANT WAIT

[Toocan]

write him again, since his party tabled amendments which were ridden over on division, would he consider repealing the law when in power, next year... god I CANT WAIT

If you are writing to him again, emphasise that it is only the retrospective element that you are complaining about. Also state that HMRC had not collected any s.58 tax before it was enacted. Furthermore, HMRC did not have a figure for how much tax would be collected by s.58 (they couldn’t, they had not calculated the returns). Therefore any tax collected as a result of the retrospective element of s.58 (4) and (5) is unexpected and unbudgeted cash.

The reason I am suggesting you mention these points is to counter the reply, “we’ll have to see if we can afford it”.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

write him again, since his party tabled amendments which were ridden over on division, would he consider repealing the law when in power, next year... god I CANT WAIT

We don't need it repealing. They could just instruct HMRC not to enforce it.

If the legal proceedings are still ongoing, then there is an even better chance that it will get dropped. They could just argue that it is a waste of public money going after people who will be bankrupted.

[poppy01]

We don't need it repealing. They could just instruct HMRC not to enforce it.

If the legal proceedings are still ongoing, then there is an even better chance that it will get dropped. They could just argue that it is a waste of public money going after people who will be bankrupted.

either way will do me fine, but repealing draws a line in the sand - no retrospection is acceptable.

I understand this governement is trying to ensure 'fair' access to good schools now, {more social engineering} by removing catchment areas and awarding places by lottery. We bought our property 3 years ago at a price inflated exactly because it ensured my children a place at one of these good schools (there are one or two) so at a stroke this government will take another 20k off my properties value (in my view another form of retrospection similar to the tax on older cars), I suppose they consider this 'fair' too. it seems to me they are at war with anyone who has worked hard to achieve what they have, they cant be removed from office soon enough..

[bombaycat]

either way will do me fine, but repealing draws a line in the sand - no retrospection is acceptable.

I understand this governement is trying to ensure 'fair' access to good schools now, {more social engineering} by removing catchment areas and awarding places by lottery. We bought our property 3 years ago at a price inflated exactly because it ensured my children a place at one of these good schools (there are one or two) so at a stroke this government will take another 20k off my properties value (in my view another form of retrospection similar to the tax on older cars), I suppose they consider this 'fair' too. it seems to me they are at war with anyone who has worked hard to achieve what they have, they cant be removed from office soon enough..

how galling for you, is this lottery thing going nationwide then? I don't have kids so I'm not directly affected, but it seems that they just can't leave anything alone, it was all their stupid performance measures that started this herding to the "best" schools creating the crap ones in the process, oh for the days when I grew up and we all just went to the nearest local comp and it was fine. I hate Zanu-Labour, they are acting like greek gods playing with us all like pawns on a board game. Get out all of you!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Letter to Stephen Timms

What do you reckon?

==============================
Dear Mr Timms,

I am in contact with several hundred families who are on the brink of financial ruin as a result of retrospective legislation contained in Section 58 FA 2008.

If you look at the number of tax returns HMRC placed under enquiry during the early years of the “Montpelier” scheme I used, it is obvious why so many people are now facing ruin.

Year..........Number of Montpelier SA Returns under enquiry by HMRC
2001/2.............................260
2002/3.............................410
2003/4.............................550
2004/5.............................690
2005/6.............................810

Very few people I talk to still have money they earned 3 years ago, let alone 8 years ago, and to make matters worse, the interest charged for “late payment” could add as much as 40% to a tax demand. Most people simply do not have the means to pay.

In January 2003, HMRC gave away concessions to users of an indentical scheme called “Suo Motu”. This raises a couple of very serious questions:-

1. If the scheme was illegal, why did HMRC let the Suo Motu users walk away with a tax advantage?
2. After doing this deal, why did they then allow the Montpelier scheme to escalate for another 5 years without taking any action?

Given that this retrospective legislation will destroy the lives of so many families, I think we deserve some honest answers to these questions.

Yours sincerely,
============================

[poppy01]

What do you reckon?

==============================
Dear Mr Timms,

I am in contact with several hundred families who are on the brink of financial ruin as a result of retrospective legislation contained in Section 58 FA 2008.

If you look at the number of tax returns HMRC placed under enquiry during the early years of the “Montpelier” scheme I used, it is obvious why so many people are now facing ruin.

Year..........Number of Montpelier SA Returns under enquiry by HMRC
2001/2.............................260
2002/3.............................410
2003/4.............................550
2004/5.............................690
2005/6.............................810

Very few people I talk to still have money they earned 3 years ago, let alone 8 years ago, and to make matters worse, the interest charged for “late payment” could add as much as 40% to a tax demand. Most people simply do not have the means to pay.

In January 2003, HMRC gave away concessions to users of an indentical scheme called “Suo Motu”. This raises a couple of very serious questions:-

1. If the scheme was illegal, why did HMRC let the Suo Motu users walk away with a tax advantage?
2. After doing this deal, why did they then allow the Montpelier scheme to escalate for another 5 years without taking any action?

Given that this retrospective legislation will destroy the lives of so many families, I think we deserve some honest answers to these questions.

Yours sincerely,
============================

yes, go for it. should send a modified version to the times as well.

[helen7]

I would replace the word 'scheme' with 'tax planning'. Other than that it looks good.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I would replace the word 'scheme' with 'tax planning'. Other than that it looks good.

I know where you are coming from but does it really matter what you call it? After all, it is registered as a tax avoidance scheme under the disclosure rules.

I think we need to reclaim the words "tax avoidance". The Government want to portray this as wrong but it is most emphatically not.

The Government needs to be careful about blurring the distinction between legal avoidance and illegal evasion, otherwise more people might opt for the latter and not bother declaring anything.