BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[BrilloPad]

Thanks mate, much appreciated. I'd better get to work on sorting out a ltd co and accountants now (+ IR35 insurance!)...

Dont forget to join the PCG.

It is so nice to be given replies to put on this thread and give the appearance of being clever! Unlike DR and others (you know who you are) who actually are clever.......

[scott_free]

Thanks mate, much appreciated. I'd better get to work on sorting out a ltd co and accountants now (+ IR35 insurance!)...

Has anyone been able to get the loan written off by MP, I’ve not had much luck and would like to declare it in my SA 2008-2009

[BrilloPad]

Has anyone been able to get the loan written off by MP, I’ve not had much luck and would like to declare it in my SA 2008-2009

Have you asked MP?

Why do you want it written off? Why not just get a CTD?

[BrilloPad]

Has anyone been able to get the loan written off by MP, I’ve not had much luck and would like to declare it in my SA 2008-2009

Apparently you need to speak to JC. Which does not stand for Joan Cuddly!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I wrote to my MP David Ruffley back in Sept last year regarding my circumstances and worries regarding Clause 55. He wrote back to say that he would pass the matter onto Jane Kennedy. That I thought was the end of it, but I recently received a second letter from him with an attached letter from Stephen Timms, I will post up the pertinent parts for those that are interested.

"Cugel is concerned about the retrospective nature of section 58 and his liability for tax in respect of this scheme and he draws attention to a judicial review being undertaken on behalf of some of the scheme participants.

As Jane Kennedy indicated during a Parliamentary debate on the Finance Bill, section 58 prevents a tax avoidance scheme, one of the purposes of which was to abuse the UK's Double taxation treaties. The scheme also set out to circumvent legislation introduced in 1987 for the same purpose and which itself was retrospective in nature. By retrospectively clarifying the 1987 legislation, section 58 makes it clear that this type of avoidance does not work and never has done.

The Government does not believe that the scheme achieved its purpose since the 1987 legislation clearly applied to it. However, during 2007 both the number of scheme users and the amounts of tax involved reached such a high level that the Government decided that a legislative response was appropriate.

The Government has always limited the use of retrospection as far as possible, using it for the worst cases of avoidance to ensure fairness and certainty for all taxpayers. That continues to be Government policy. In exceptional circumstances, the Government reserves the right to use retrospection, as in this instance, where 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.

The Government is aware of the Judicial Revue proceedings that have been instigated. As you will understand, I can make no further comment on this matter."

Stephen Timms"


The rest of the letter goes on to describe ways that I can pay and thanks me for raising my concerns.

This is the standard response, which several of us have had. It is possible that they will just keep trotting this out no matter what specific questions we ask.

However, I am hoping that those MPs (eg. David Gauke, John Redwood, Edward Davey) who have had several constituents write to them will demand proper answers.

No matter what they throw back at us, we need to keep up the pressure.

[Emigre]

Has anyone been able to get the loan written off by MP, I’ve not had much luck and would like to declare it in my SA 2008-2009

Errrr.... Why? You entered into the deal with MP. Stop it now by all means - you may have a different view on these things now. But, as BP says, why not get a CTD and let it ride? Not quite win win but far better than just paying up.

[scott_free]

Errrr.... Why? You entered into the deal with MP. Stop it now by all means - you may have a different view on these things now. But, as BP says, why not get a CTD and let it ride? Not quite win win but far better than just paying up.

My understanding is that it’s not declared on my SA, so what do I get a CTD for, the amount + penalties ?????

[ASB]

This is the standard response, which several of us have had. It is possible that they will just keep trotting this out no matter what specific questions we ask.

True. But the momentem you have caused does seem to be to be such as you are getting beyond the standard responses in some cases. And for that you should be congratulated. It is a substantial achievement.

[BrilloPad]

My understanding is that it’s not declared on my SA, so what do I get a CTD for, the amount + penalties ?????

not declared on the Tax Return but covered by the inital BBT disclosure - so no penalties (just like the scheme we are figting about now!)

[Emigre]

My understanding is that it’s not declared on my SA, so what do I get a CTD for, the amount + penalties ?????

DR is your man on the details of CTDs, take a look at the front page of this thread for a link. My understanding is that you do not buy to cover penalties or interest, so just the amount that you consider to be at risk.

Also, I'm assuming that since you were only moved to the new scheme post 12 March 2008 that there is unlikely to have been any loans in 2007/08. Therefore any "income" that HMRC may try and deem would fall in 2008/09 and would not fall payable until January 2010.

Remember, the amount is only at risk - its NOT tax payable.