BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[poppy01]

Yes, an excellent post by Friendly Accountant. We need the MP's and the courts on our side, which is something DR has done fantastically well!! I honestly believe the general public would have no support for us, no matter how the facts were presented.

I've said it before, but absolutely noone I've spoken to about this (all members of the general public) was not aghast that Government thinks they can do this. HMRC are widely despised by most people anyway. I still say, publicity cant harm our cause, and might give the buggers some discomfort, anything that gives them pain gives me a lift..
I think this is a big story, not our paltry avoidance scheme, but the very idea Government can go back in time,change a law and punish people for it.
It is our bad fortune to be on the receiving end of the first wave, but anyone who thinks that will be the last is deluded, as long as Labour is in power. Did DR not initially say the Journalist is question was sympathetic, and the story was going to be about HMRC heavy handedness. There will be no red top interest, because we are nobodies. Personally I would say yes. I want it in the public domain. and thats all I have to say about that

[poppy01]

I suspect the papers will not be interested anyway. No offence but there is no-one "interesting" affected by it.

Tax avoidance is widespread in this country but it's only newsworthy when it involves footballers, celebs, the establishment, organised crime etc.

It will probably get reported when it gets into court though.

also, had a thought, are we sure theres nonone interesting affected, anyone have a famous brother, sister, cousin .. whatever.

not that I would want that kind of attention, thats the red top stuff we should avoid

[Toocan]

But that's just the point. We're a headline, a couple of inches at most. Nobody (least of all a journo) is going to bother asking those questions, let along get around to answering them in any depth. Do you really think that going into great length about Padmore and what may or may not have been said in an obscure Commons debate in 2002 will make good copy? Maybe for a tax trade mag, but in the Times (or, god forbid, the Sun?). Right now, to the vast majority of the population we're tax-dodging scum and the whole issue of due process, transparency and general incompetence is entirely secondary to the main story.

Isn't it just as likely that the headline will read:

THE DARK SIDE OF HMRC

The Guardian spent almost two weeks printing details of LEGAL tax avoidance schemes used by major British companies - is there an avalanche of these stoires in the red tops?

There is no sex, drugs or show business in this - the red tops are unlikely to be interested. Our complaint is one of law - being deprived of law.

We have nothing to loose. The genie is already out so lets just see what happens.

I wonder if Mr Branigan will enjoy getting a call from the papers? He doesn't seem to like the light.

[Toocan]

I've had a positive reply from my MP Mike Penning. He has written to Stephen Timms (Financial Secretary) on my behalf, as follows:

I write on behalf of a constituent to express his concerns about the provisions of the Finance Act 2008 relating to UK residents engaged in foreign partnerships.

My constituent feels that the retrospective element of the Finance Act contained within Section 58, Clause 4 will unfairly penalize his financial interests.

Prior to the enactment of this legislation my constituent states that he was able to take advantage of a scheme allowing a tax advantage for individuals engaged in foreign partnerships. It is my understanding that certain individuals engaged in foreign partnerships and making use of this scheme reached a settlement with HMRC over their tax status before the Finance Act came into law. However as my constituent was not able to reach a settlement with HMRC, he is now subject to the retrospective element of the legislation and will therefore be penalized unfairly.

I would be grateful if you could give your thoughts on this case and give any details of the mechanisms by which the Treasury settled the tax status of individuals engaged in foreign partnerships prior to the enactment of the Finance Act.

I have followed this up with the Background to Section 58 letter today.

Nice - Timms pen will burn in his hand when he responds to that one.

[Toocan]

Ah but isn't Steven Timms a rich somebody? I can see his grubby picture already. Hasn't he been involved in tax avoidance with his own funds? Or was he just "utilising the reliefs available"?
Lets have him all over the press about his own tax avoidance, rather than ours? What exactly were the commercial objectives behind his transfer of shares to his wife who never worked for the business and to his family trust? Tax planning? Tax avoidance? If we are tax cheats, so is he and in many times the size of any of us. More newsworthy I think. Oh yes, he was an IT contractor too...

Steven Timms has a "Family Trust"? It isn't domiciled in the Isle of Man is it?

[dezze]

Steven Timms has a "Family Trust"? It isn't domiciled in the Isle of Man is it?

Blimey, where did you dig that up? Sounds pretty good to me.

[smalldog]

I've had a positive reply from my MP Mike Penning. He has written to Stephen Timms (Financial Secretary) on my behalf, as follows:

I write on behalf of a constituent to express his concerns about the provisions of the Finance Act 2008 relating to UK residents engaged in foreign partnerships.

My constituent feels that the retrospective element of the Finance Act contained within Section 58, Clause 4 will unfairly penalize his financial interests.

Prior to the enactment of this legislation my constituent states that he was able to take advantage of a scheme allowing a tax advantage for individuals engaged in foreign partnerships. It is my understanding that certain individuals engaged in foreign partnerships and making use of this scheme reached a settlement with HMRC over their tax status before the Finance Act came into law. However as my constituent was not able to reach a settlement with HMRC, he is now subject to the retrospective element of the legislation and will therefore be penalized unfairly.

I would be grateful if you could give your thoughts on this case and give any details of the mechanisms by which the Treasury settled the tax status of individuals engaged in foreign partnerships prior to the enactment of the Finance Act.

I have followed this up with the Background to Section 58 letter today.

fantastic stuff!!!! interesting there is no press release about S58 from HMRC, as you say maybe they are actually starting to feel ashamed..

oh and just to make my life even more interesting my contract finishes next week, unexpectedly due to project cancellation caused by the current climate, so will be out of work reallll soon...nice Gordon, my only assets have lost almost half their value, im out of work next week due to the crunch and youve sent me a bill for around £100k....LOLOL...

can u bankrupt someone who is on the dole?

[bombaycat]

fantastic stuff!!!! interesting there is no press release about S58 from HMRC, as you say maybe they are actually starting to feel ashamed..

oh and just to make my life even more interesting my contract finishes next week, unexpectedly due to project cancellation caused by the current climate, so will be out of work reallll soon...nice Gordon, my only assets have lost almost half their value, im out of work next week due to the crunch and youve sent me a bill for around £100k....LOLOL...

can u bankrupt someone who is on the dole?

I just started a new one 2.5 weeks ago - there are loads of vacancies what area/location do you work in? Can you IM me - I might be able to help...

[silver_lining]

...press cont'd

We certainly have mixed opinion on this one

Just to add, anything that affects public opinion or individuals opinion certainly has impact in the courts; make no mistake about it. Moreover when subtleties and subjection/ objection come in to play. The Legal system is not black and white as some 'people' would think. This is well known fact in legal circles that lawyers are always particularly interested in who presides over causes particularly in significant cases in the high courts when you have a panel of Lords. The simple fact is, the judges their moral/ social even religious beliefs have influence on outcome. When you believe in something strong enough coupled with intelligent, articulate judges; they can articulate an opinion one way or the other and make it sound convincing.....

I can still see some of the cited pros.....

What might be more appropriate is targetting a press release for an 'interested' target group, that may actually be able to help. Law press of some sort etc.... influential people who care about law/ politics etc. read this and ignoring our 'individual' cases, have a wider interest in the principle being undermined.

[Emigre]

Blimey, where did you dig that up? Sounds pretty good to me.

See Point 6 of Timms' response...

http://www.publications.parliament.u.../313/31303.htm

The text of the original complaint:

http://www.parliament.the-stationery.../313/31304.htm