BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[SantaClaus]

If the legislation was clear, how come two of the biggest accountancy practices (KPMG & PCW) plus Mont P and a host of clever barrristers thought it did not apply.

That is a really good point.

[AlbionRovers]

My agent is chasing me for invoices for 3 weeks ago this morning.

Are MP so busy that I cannot get paid properly?

Not a dig, just an observation.

[TheBarCapBoyz]

Sorry, but the PCG are a spineless bunch of twats.


Yes I agree Santa, my question about suggesting the PCG are useless was rhetorical.

I agree, they have become a bunch of self-righteous Government lackeys.

Which is a shame, as they did represent us all pretty well during the IR35 fight.

[Ratican]

DEMAND clear answers

In exceptional circumstances, the Government reserves the right to use retrospection, as in this instance, here it is fair, proportionate and in the public interest to do so. Retrospective legislation does not in itself contravene the European Convention on Human Rights.

This looks very similar to a few of the responses I have had.
My tactic has now changed to ask specific questions... as suggested here.
We at least deserve an explanation as to why the Govt. thinks they can do this. These responses explain nothing.

For people who have received this standard response I would suggest writing back a very short letter asking for answers to specific questions. Along this lines of... you said this... but I don't understand how that can be correct due to / or... you failed to answer my question... DEMAND clear answers - difficult - but be persistent!

Also - if you haven't yet written to the Ministers involved / MPs - PLEASE DO - but perhaps divert from the standard letter and ask some different concise and specific questions.

I don't believe these exchanges are a waste of time at all. It might get a few of them thinking and possibly thinking twice the next time they consider doing something like this.

BTW:
Retrospective legislation does not in itself contravene the European Convention on Human Rights.

explain yourself please!??

[sgee]

Does anyone have a conscise explanation of this Retrospection/Human Rights case. I understood that montp cannot go down this route anymore for some reason, although happy to be corrected if I am wrong..

thanks!

[seadog]

Reading between the lines, Mr. PCG says here http://www.shout99.com/contractors/s...id=52716;n=250 that it's our own fault as we were blatantly flouting the spirit of the law. Cheers and thanks for your support!

If you go to this blog you will see it is written by Susie Hughes.

Who is Susie?

An ex goverment spin doctor!!!, now working as a freelance journalist.

No surprise she is pedddlaing the goverment line on BN66

[BrilloPad]

He agrees with the Government taking action but not retrospectively.

I think thats everyone's view more or less, which is why the PCG, if they genuinely object to the retrospective aspect of this legislation, should be getting involved in this fight.

I am a member of the PCG - as I am now limited. Is anyone else here a member?

I am trying to find if there is anything they can/will do to help us. After all - if IR35 was retrospectively clarified back to 1999 it would be bad!

One thing to bear in mind though is that montpelier do not seem to want any help! Either from us or pcg. They seem to rely on their own legal team.

The PCG have stated it is wrong - can they do anything else?

[bombaycat]

welcome to the thread and thank you for delurking. sorry to hear about your woes - hang in there things will get better.

Does your house insurance cover your freezer contents?

How long have you been with montp? Are you still with them?

We will have to pay tax+simple interest - no fine, no compound interest. Any idea how much you owe? Should be about a third of your trust income.

BP

Yes, insurance covers freezer but thought not worth losing no claims status - just irritating on top of everything else.

Been with MontP since April 2005, still with them now. Probably owe in the region of £120k before interest, have asked MontP for exact figure. Currently have it in mortgage offset which is linked BBR + 0.49% so now only getting 3.49% return so probably better to get it in CTD. Won't be thrilled about losing the money as was going to build a new holiday let to generate income for my retirement since all I want is to lead a simple self-sufficient life.

I still have faith in MontP, you only have to look at the type of lawyers that work for the government and the type for MontP and I would imagine that the quality of expertise is not directly comparable. In my experience of going to the high court as a spectator (a friend of mine is a QC and got me interested) judges are actually extremely sharp and not the dodering fools that the media would have us believe. I think we have a decent shot still.....
I may even go to the JR hearings if they are open to public which they ought to be...might even be more gripping than the Hutton Enquiry (that was pretty amazing)

[KiwiGuy]

letter of Postponement

Anyone else recieved a letter of postponement saying that the payments can be postponed. I guess this follows on from MP letters to them

As usual the letter is wrong from the IR, demanding money already paid....

[Emigre]

BTW:
Retrospective legislation does not in itself contravene the European Convention on Human Rights.

explain yourself please!??

This is technically true! It is only when it adversely impacts someone that it may contravene the European Convention on Human Rights.

In this case the Government has deliberately set out to take something they would otherwise not be entitled to. This is why there is s JR to prove that our Human Rights have been adversely impacted.

Sad thing here is they are trying to fob us off with smart words. We can do smart words too - may well involve advice on sex and travel