BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[WhatEver]

off topic..

So much for Jane K's Holier than thou attitude...

"A Minister is at the centre of a sleaze row after failing to disclose to Westminster officials that she uses taxpayers' money to employ her partner as her researcher..."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-expense.html

[bombaycat]

So much for Jane K's Holier than thou attitude...

"A Minister is at the centre of a sleaze row after failing to disclose to Westminster officials that she uses taxpayers' money to employ her partner as her researcher..."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-expense.html

just goes to prove she either has a tenuous grasp of what rules are to be followed or she has little idea how to apply rules - says it all really....
I hope they hound her out of office and make her pay back the money - with punitive interest of course!!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

So much for Jane K's Holier than thou attitude...

"A Minister is at the centre of a sleaze row after failing to disclose to Westminster officials that she uses taxpayers' money to employ her partner as her researcher..."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-expense.html

Nothing that a bit of retrospection can't fix.

He said: 'Once this matter was brought to Jane's attention, she immediately sought further clarification about what should be included, from the Registrar.

'As a result, and even though it is not compulsory, Jane has now amended the entry on the Register of Members' Interests.'

[Gizza]

Sounds like at least teh Norla and ASMG loan schemes are being looked at by HMRC. However, as they were disclosed it was expected that this will happen.

I'm not sure if they all follow the same model and procedures to pay the loans...it may mean that some get caught and some don't?

Yeah - they are deffo going after Norla (well Edge). Not sure what the outcome is going to be, but I am going to take advice asap and see what my options are. It must be that a scheme that was once legal, is now probably not. Hence, I am going to have cough up a lot of tax + fine + interest.

My only other worry - is what happens to the pesky loan, if for HMRC purposes i am FORCED to treat it as income.

I feel like a schmuk now!

[smalldog]

I presume she can retrospectively unemloy her partner to get herself out of this mess? After all thats a legitimate method of control is it not?

[ASB]

Does anyone know if there are exceptions where you are allowed to write to an MP who is not your own local MP?

You can write to any - but it's not the protocol and most often would just solicit a "I'm not your mp" type of response.

I beleive the correct protocol is for you to write to your own MP asking him to raise the matter with him in his position as a committee member. You need to try and phrase it in such a way that he will take the matter up with you rather than just "thanks for forwarding me mr DR's ..... I would comment as follows ...." and then this just being relayed back to you.

If you do try writing to him directly ensure it is obvious that is is because of his position as a member of the committee and not just because he happens to be an mp who was on the committee and largely supportive of your views.

It can be difficult to find out the exact protocol - the best way is probably to track down your MPs AGENT - who should have a constituency office somewhere - and ask him/her.

Certainly in theory you can raise concerns with a parliamentary committee - indeed they generally invite this - but only whilst it is actively sitting.

[poppy01]

And this is why, surely, our JR will succeed. I have not lost faith in the UK so much that any judge in the land will allow such a preposterous precedent to be set.

And if we fail I'll simply go bankrupt and then sod off somewhere hot and lay on the beach by day serve drinks in a bar by night. As all my friends have done while I've stupidly been working hard and attempting to build up a business.

So I win either way ;-)

Lets face it, the sums involved are so big they are virtually an invitation to go bankrupt, with dropping property prices, limited contracts, etc etc. my assets are way less than my debts even without bn66. I am seriously considering maxing out my credit cards on a lifetime trip to aussie and the states. I know, bit of a problem if (when) we win, but lets face it, they cant make me 'more' bankrupt, can they.

[KiwiGuy]

ha ha ha ha

ive invested all my money in shares.....ha ha ha try and get the money now IR

[Emigre]

So much for Jane K's Holier than thou attitude...

"A Minister is at the centre of a sleaze row after failing to disclose to Westminster officials that she uses taxpayers' money to employ her partner as her researcher..."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-expense.html

At least we can see how level the playing field is... JK failed to declare (rather like evasion AKA breaking the law) and apparently is permitted to retrospectively adjust; we entered into legal tax planning arrangements (HMRC brand it tax avoidance) and the Govt retrospectively adjust...

[Ratican]

David Gauke MP

Does anyone know if there are exceptions where you are allowed to write to an MP who is not your own local MP?

The main opponent of the legislation on the Finance Bill Committee was:

Mr. David Gauke (Conservative, South-West Hertfordshire)

Could I write to him (not as an MP) but in his capacity as a member of the Committee?

I wrote to him - just a quick email really - but he did write back:

Dear Mr Ratican

Many thanks for raising this issue.

As you will have seen from the Official Report of the debate on clause 55, we strongly opposed the retrospective nature of Clause 55 and sought to amend it accordingly.

Retrospective legislation creates uncertainty and damages business confidence, as Justine pointed out. It also denies taxpayers the opportunity to adjust their behaviour in a legitimate way to avoid an additional tax burden.

In general terms, we rely on Parliament to safeguard our liberties and, if MPs fail to do so, on the electorate to change the MPs. However, it may be possible that this provision may prove to be vulnerable to legal challenge (possibly on the grounds that the legislations denies taxpayers their reasonable expectations) but I am not in a position to advise on whether such a course of action would be successful.

I have no reason to believe that Jane Kennedy was lying in the course of this debate although I do believe that she failed to understand the significance of the retrospective nature of the provisions and the strength of opposition to it.

Given that this provision has now been enacted, we would need to look at the practicalities of repealing it once in power. We would, however, be much more mindful of the fact that legislation of this kind further undermines the attractiveness of the UK as a place to do business.

Regards
David Gauke MP