BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[HalfMonkey]

Step up the pressure on our MPS

I think in light of Fog's sterling work we should really step up the pressure on our MPs. Whether that's sending more and more letters or going to see them in person I'm not sure.... I guess both would be best.

We're definitely in this for the long haul and getting conservative support for our cause looks like it might be a shrewd move.

[ContractIn]

This morning myself and my husband met with John Redwood. The overcome was a positive one.

I explained the situation to him (although he was quite up to speed already which is a good sign). I focused on the restropsective nature of the clause, the deal that had already been struck from another scheme, the mis-leading of parliament by Jane Kennedy, the thousands or ordinary hard-working people and their families that would be impacted (particularly the 4 that I am aware of in his constituency) and of course, the personal impact this is having on myself and my husband. (By way of note my husbands very successful business has now had to close this week - it has meant 10 more people out of work - as we could not afford to risk putting anymore savings into it because we have had to tie up what little we have for a worst case scenario..... even though the pipeline for his business is better than ever).

The key points from the meeting are as follows:
1. He re-iterated that he was totally against IR35 and he had worked to ensure it would be over-turned in the 2005 Conservative manifesto as he recognised the impact on ordinary working people. He said, as far as he was concerned, it was quite clear at the time that it would force more people off-shore.
2. He termed the situation 'legalised theft' by the HMRC and he is appalled by it all. The planning for the 2010 manifesto has not yet fully commenced but he said he would do everything he can to ensure that the retrospective nature of this was over-turned.
3. When asked about leading an inquiry he was quite dismissive - not becuase he did not appreciate that there had obviously been issue - but becuase he mentioned that inquiry's don't often lead anywhere, mis-leading happens very regularly and there is little/no thing ever done even if it is proved. He felt it would be a waste of effort.
4. He had still not had an answer from the Treasury (I mentioned that none of the other MP's had either as far as i was aware) and he said he would continue to demand a response. He explained he was very frustrated by the the fact he had one secretary who manages to correspond with all enquiries and they have 750,000 staff and cannot respond to as few..... He said this happens frequently. I explained that I was aware of over 2000 people being impacted and that letters have already gone off to 121 MP's - many in multiples. I also re-iterated the impact of retropection on UK business - and the appalling message it sends to anyone wanting to invest.
5. When I asked about appropriate action he said he would do 3 things (obviously he had a few suggestions from me!!); Firstly he would be enaging with his colleagues on this - particularly David Gauke MP and he would look to get some responses and traction on our behalf - including a response from the Treasury. Secondly he will personally work to ensure that this is included in the Conservative Manifesto to be over-turned should they come to power. Thirdly, and finally he would take up my personal case (NI and UTR requested).

I would appreciate everyone's thoughts but my key questions for everyone are:
1. Should we reduce our effort on the mis-leading case against Jane Kennedy in light of its seemingly futile outcome?
2. Why does everyone not try and see their MP in person? The meeting took 25 minutes only - and it has made it real with John Redwood now - he has seen the white's of my eyes.... especially with the back up of DR's documents.
3. How else can we keep up the pressure?

Fog
(Apologies for long rambling message - thought I would get feedback back to everyone fast....)

Great post - well done.

I am certainly going to start pressurising my MP as been disappointed with the limited response on this so far.

[seadog]

This morning myself and my husband met with John Redwood. The overcome was a positive one.

I explained the situation to him (although he was quite up to speed already which is a good sign). I focused on the restropsective nature of the clause, the deal that had already been struck from another scheme, the mis-leading of parliament by Jane Kennedy, the thousands or ordinary hard-working people and their families that would be impacted (particularly the 4 that I am aware of in his constituency) and of course, the personal impact this is having on myself and my husband. (By way of note my husbands very successful business has now had to close this week - it has meant 10 more people out of work - as we could not afford to risk putting anymore savings into it because we have had to tie up what little we have for a worst case scenario..... even though the pipeline for his business is better than ever).

The key points from the meeting are as follows:
1. He re-iterated that he was totally against IR35 and he had worked to ensure it would be over-turned in the 2005 Conservative manifesto as he recognised the impact on ordinary working people. He said, as far as he was concerned, it was quite clear at the time that it would force more people off-shore.
2. He termed the situation 'legalised theft' by the HMRC and he is appalled by it all. The planning for the 2010 manifesto has not yet fully commenced but he said he would do everything he can to ensure that the retrospective nature of this was over-turned.
3. When asked about leading an inquiry he was quite dismissive - not becuase he did not appreciate that there had obviously been issue - but becuase he mentioned that inquiry's don't often lead anywhere, mis-leading happens very regularly and there is little/no thing ever done even if it is proved. He felt it would be a waste of effort.
4. He had still not had an answer from the Treasury (I mentioned that none of the other MP's had either as far as i was aware) and he said he would continue to demand a response. He explained he was very frustrated by the the fact he had one secretary who manages to correspond with all enquiries and they have 750,000 staff and cannot respond to as few..... He said this happens frequently. I explained that I was aware of over 2000 people being impacted and that letters have already gone off to 121 MP's - many in multiples. I also re-iterated the impact of retropection on UK business - and the appalling message it sends to anyone wanting to invest.
5. When I asked about appropriate action he said he would do 3 things (obviously he had a few suggestions from me!!); Firstly he would be enaging with his colleagues on this - particularly David Gauke MP and he would look to get some responses and traction on our behalf - including a response from the Treasury. Secondly he will personally work to ensure that this is included in the Conservative Manifesto to be over-turned should they come to power. Thirdly, and finally he would take up my personal case (NI and UTR requested).

I would appreciate everyone's thoughts but my key questions for everyone are:
1. Should we reduce our effort on the mis-leading case against Jane Kennedy in light of its seemingly futile outcome?
2. Why does everyone not try and see their MP in person? The meeting took 25 minutes only - and it has made it real with John Redwood now - he has seen the white's of my eyes.... especially with the back up of DR's documents.
3. How else can we keep up the pressure?

Fog
(Apologies for long rambling message - thought I would get feedback back to everyone fast....)

Well done for getting Redwood on side. Hope all the background info you received was useful.

We must learn the lessons about the dead end of the "misleading parliament" and concentrate on those areas whcih might produce results.

What would be best from our point of view would be to get HMRC to be ienstructed not to pursue any claims under the retrspective part of the act.

Obvioulsy we have to accept that the loophole has been closed but we do seem to be winning the argument that the retrospective part is causing much more trouble than maybe was first imagined when it was conceived.

With so many MP's showing some element of sympathy how can we turn this into positive action to get HMRC to back off.

Would pressure from MP's be enough to get a U turn.

I have a meeting nexr Friday with my MP who was the chief Secretary to the Treasury between 2002/5.

I hope to get not only some answers to some questions but more importasnt some anwers on what she as an ex labour minister can do for us.

[seadog]

They responded promptly last year when only a handful of people wrote. Unfortunately, the arguments we've put forward this time are not so easy to rebut, and many MPs have had multiple representations and the Treasury know they won't be fobbed of with platitudes.

Also, we have presented evidence (FOI) that some officials in the Treasury may not have seen before.

The shear number and diversity of letters makes it difficult for them to issue a standard response which will satisfy MPs.

I suspect they are really irritated because they thought this was done and dusted last year.

By the way, I have now received confirmation that 121 MPs have received letters. Many people have also sent the followup letters. Below is a list of MPs who have received multiple representations.

John Redwood, Con, 4
David Gauke, Con, 3
John Hayes, Con, 3
Eric Pickles, Con, 3
Emily Thornberry, Lab, 3
Edward Davey, LibDem, 3
David Cameron, Con, 2
Philip Hammond ,Con, 2
Greg Hands, Con, 2
Jeremy Hunt, Con, 2
Andrew MacKay, Con, 2
Michael Mates, Con, 2
Theresa May, Con, 2
Bob Neill, Con, 2
Andrew Selous, Con, 2
Robert Wilson, Con, 2
Jeremy Corbyn, Lab, 2
Frank Dobson, Lab, 2
Jim Dowd, Lab, 2
Steve Pound, Lab, 2
Helen Southworth, Lab, 2
Robert Smith, LibDem, 2
Andrew Stunell, LibDem, 2

Now that the pressure on MP's ois building up DR do you have a record of the response from individual MP's so we can keep a tab on who are for us against or just indifferent.

if the day ever comes when we need to get MP's acting together it would be useful to have their comements all in one place.

[nuffsaid]

What would be best from our point of view would be to get HMRC to be ienstructed not to pursue any claims under the retrspective part of the act.

Obvioulsy we have to accept that the loophole has been closed but we do seem to be winning the argument that the retrospective part is causing much more trouble than maybe was first imagined when it was conceived.

With so many MP's showing some element of sympathy how can we turn this into positive action to get HMRC to back off.

Perhaps with our follow up letters (to our MP's) we should mention that we and MontP will be fighting this for a very long time, and this will likely cost the tax payer far more than the HMRC could recoup?

Anyone care to do the maths so see if this holds up?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Now that the pressure on MP's ois building up DR do you have a record of the response from individual MP's so we can keep a tab on who are for us against or just indifferent.

if the day ever comes when we need to get MP's acting together it would be useful to have their comements all in one place.

Not as such but I can summarise it as follows.

Most Labour MPs are unsympathetic. One or two mavericks have shown some support.

All Tory and LibDem MPs are broadly sympathetic. Some Tories are trotting out the central office line about the state of the public finances etc. hence no promises to reverse the legislation.

Only one or two MPs (eg. John Redwood, Ed Davey) have been proactive.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Perhaps with our follow up letters (to our MP's) we should mention that we and MontP will be fighting this for a very long time, and this will likely cost the tax payer far more than the HMRC could recoup?

Anyone care to do the maths so see if this holds up?

The maths won't stack up. There is one property developer who has put £60M through the PwC scheme, so it would be worth HMRC pursuing it just to recover tax from this user.

However, the Tories were fiercely opposed to the legislation, so they may abhore the idea of any public money being used to defend it. If you couple this with widescale bankruptcies then it starts to look like an albatross.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Tory official party line

If you received a letter from a Tory MP with this in it, email me. I am working on a letter to counter this.

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...

[DonkeyRhubarb]

If you received a letter from a Tory MP with this in it, email me. I am working on a letter to counter this.

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...

The letter is ready if anyone fancies sending it.

[poppy01]

The maths won't stack up. There is one property developer who has put £60M through the PwC scheme, so it would be worth HMRC pursuing it just to recover tax from this user.

However, the Tories were fiercely opposed to the legislation, so they may abhore the idea of any public money being used to defend it. If you couple this with widescale bankruptcies then it starts to look like an albatross.

I still say the maths is irrelevant. Any revenue collected this way is 'poisoned fruits' and an ethical government shouldnt want it. If it was all about the public finances they'd pledge to raise the basic rate to 30%, they wont do that because it would be political suicide. Don't kid me its about public finances.