Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
As anyone who has send the 1st letter is aware, this was merely the "bait". It was short on detail and just focussed on the human cost.
Some MPs are now starting to show an interest and want more details, which I anticipated.
If anyone gets a request from their MP for further info, I have a one page document that summarises the whole Section 58 debacle that I can email to you.
It even tells them which opposition MPs they can contact who raised amendments and challenged the Government's use of retrospection.
If anyone gets a request from their MP for further info, I have a one page document that summarises the whole Section 58 debacle that I can email to you.
DR
That will be enormously helpful in organising my thought processes.
My MP, The Rt Hon Mark Oaten (Lib.Dem), will most likely respond with a request for more info. He is a Member of the Business and Enterprise Committee and my personalised modifications of your template carries enough for him to want more. He has been keeping a low profile of late - the days of being Deputy Leader are long gone, but this isn't too demanding and could bolster his 'Crusader' reputation.
According to HMRC's own T&C's for SA tax enquiries we have had the right to take the enquiry to the tax commisioners ourselves. We could have done this based on saying that holding an enquiry open for 6+years is unreasonable and putting in a complaint.
Any one any thoughts on why MP havnt done this and or is this still an option, it would have to be some one brave though.
It would bring matters to a head !
Fisherman
I think I am write in saying that Mont P are taking a case to the commissioners.
I'm sure this has been raised before but I can't find a mention of it.
These chaps seem to be offoering a solution but, being slightly dim, I'm not sure I really understand
Yes, its been debated here before ... see post 772 (of a previous BN66 thread.... "BN66 - Time to fight back!!" onwards..... but basically don't go anywhere near it was the conclusion.....
Last edited by normalbloke; 10 February 2009, 18:18.
Reason: corrected thread
Comment