BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[Toocan]

Sir Fred's pension could affect us, have a look at The Guardian (who's owners are involved in tax avoidance according to their recent series) article on what the government could do:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...-legal-options

I don't think there is ANYTHING the government can legally do. It's a smoke screen to divert attention from the person who got £24 billion from Sir Fred's company alone. What did you spend all that money on Gordon?

As for Harman - that was a leadership bid on the basis that Gordon will fail to take Sir Fred's pension off him.

[Emigre]

Here’s a curiosity. HMRC claim they have to collect tax on the DTA schemes because that is what the law says. If that is the case, how come they have managed to “bend” the rules for RBS? Have a look here.

http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/deta...ail&id=4550905

Also, RBS had paid over £16 billion to the government between 1998 and 2007. That would be worth around £24 billion in today’s money – so if RBS was allowed to follow the rule of the law, and set their losses against past profits, they would not have needed £24 billion of taxpayer funds.

I think a few RBA shareholders would be somewhat upset by that.

Seems like Gordon Brown is far more responsible for the problems with the banks than he’d like to admit.

Needless to say with this Govt there are a number of issues here!

Firstly, what about the position of the minority shareholder? How does he feel if the Bank makes side deasl with the majority shareholder? Has the majority shareholder offered to buy out the minority shareholder? No - quite to the contrary - they have stated they do not want to nationalise the bank! Not quite sure what 84% means other than nationalised but this Govt does seem to make up the rules as they go along. Time for a team share I think, we could have as much fun and mischief as we do here...

Secondly, much of the loss of RBS as I understand it is down to a general write down in the value of loans (ie a general provision rather than a specific provision). General provisons never used to be tax deductible, basically because at that point the loss is not proven.

[TheGadgetMan]

In my view, he should keep his pension. Tell 'em to f*** off Fred!!! Sue the bastards if they try to take it off you. (I feel another letter coming on )

This Government are just looking for scapegoats. First they blame the "spiv short sellers" for collapsing bank shares, then they blame the boards of directors. I didn't see anyone complaining a couple of years ago (Government, BoE, FSA etc.) when the economy was booming. What are they going to do next? Retrospectively take back all the bonuses paid out over the last 10 years?

I don't know about anyone else but I'm thoroughly sick of hearing that it's all the fault of the banks and no-one else shares any responsibility. When are the Government etc. going to apologise to the British people for their role in this?

Exactly so...this government had its representatives on the Board of Directors of RBS when it agreed Fred's pension...it played a part in authorising it...like DR said, it is a purely diversionary tactic to shift attention away from the monumental balls-up that Gordon Brown has personally played in screwing up this country...

and I mean it quite literally when I say that GB has single-handedly f**ked-up Great Britain...you want evidence, I'll give you evidence...several years ago, Gordon Brown sold off the family jewels to pay for his pet projects...he sold off 60% of this country's gold reserves...those gold reserves provided a back-bone to this country's economy...and he sold at the bottom of the market...everyone told him not to do it...every financial expert told him that he was selling this country's future...

now gold is worth 4 times what GB sold it for......

http://www.londonstockexchange.com/e...ebandwagon.htm

Gordon, if you had those gold reserves now, how useful would they have been to you in today's economic meltdown?

Prudent, my ass! You've got to be kidding....

[DonkeyRhubarb]

If you have written to your MP...

One MP, Edward Davey (LibDem) has agreed to take up our cause. He has described the legislation as "immoral".

He wants a list of all MPs who have been written to, and he is going to try and get the LibDem and Tory finance teams to collaborate on this.

If you have written to your MP, can you drop me an email with just the MP's name and party as the Subject eg.

Subject: David Cameron (Con)

Please do this even if you have told me the MPs name before. I will publish the results here in a few days time.

Thanks!
DR

[ContractIn]

I have been watching this thread on behalf of one of my SA clients who appointed me his accountant when he left one of the schemes mentioned on this thread. So it has now become my responsibility to deal with this on his behalf.

I cannot say too much, but from consulting with other specialist tax advisers we are horrified and shocked at the retrospective nature of this...........

The House of Lords are currently changing some of their rules and stated that it would be wrong to apply it retrospectively.

It is unfortunate you were not Bankers, MP's or members of the House of Lords.

Can you divulge what the other tax specialists opinion is on MontP winning this?

[ASB]

I thought what Harman the hatchet said was shocking: that Sir Fred's pension was okay in a court of law, but not in a court of public opinion.

What sort of justice does she believe in?

The Labour party have been in power far too long, the veil of corruption decends ever further.

Shocking squared. I heard her yesterday on a repeat on the way to the airport. Really made me want to puke. She was effectively saying "what's right and enforceable is whatever we might want it to be at any given point".

[ASB]

In my view, he should keep his pension. Tell 'em to f*** off Fred!!! Sue the bastards if they try to take it off you. (I feel another letter coming on )

Yes he should. Firstly by far the vast majority of it was built up before it all went tits up. Secondly can anybody seriously believe our government were suddenly surprised by the size of his contractual requirement? If they were they are incompetent. If they were not then the least they could - and possibly should - have done is amend the terms so there was no further build up of the fund. Thus demonstrating they were incompetent. What is morally bankrupt is turning him into a public scapegoat. Sir Fred, don't back down.

[HMRCAreCrooks]

Harriet Harman

Today on Radio 4 some tax adviser (I dont know the full details of his position or company) was being questoined about what Harriet had said and how it could be possible. The adviser mentioned that in reality there was nothing she could do other than to create a new law and then apply it retrospectively. He then **said** to the effect, "And if the goverment goes down that road this becomes an issue of violation of human rights."

It seems the retrospective aspect is held by almost everyone that talks about it other than Labour to be immoral, injust and ultimately a violation of human rights.

This doesnt mean much, but its still good to hear peoples opinion end on an issue of human rights when retrospective laws are mentioned.

[redkieran]

Just written to my MP - Emily Thornberry (Labour - Islington South and Finsbury, also on the committee that voted for this rubbish)

Not sure how much use it will be though as her voting record is loyal Labour.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Results so far

Sorted by number of letters received, then last name. Apologies for lousy formatting.

Firstname,Lastname,Party,No of Letters
David,Gauke,Con,3
John,Redwood,Con,3
David,Cameron,Con,2
Jeremy,Corbyn,Lab,2
Edward,Davey,LibDem,2
Jim,Dowd,Lab,2
Philip,Hammond,Con,2
John,Hayes,Con,2
Jeremy,Hunt,Con,2
Michael,Mates,Con,2
Bob,Neill,Con,2
Eric,Pickles,Con,2
Steve,Pound,Lab,2
Helen,Southworth,Lab,2
Robert,Wilson,Con,2
Diane,Abbott,Lab,1
John,Baron,Con,1
Roberta,Blackman-Woods,Lab,1
Vince,Cable,LibDem,1
Ben,Chapman,Lab,1
Paul,Clark,Lab,1
Tom,Clarke,Lab,1
Harry,Cohen,Lab,1
frank,dobson,Lab,1
Stephen,Dorrell,Con,1
Nadine,Dorries,Con,1
Clive,Efford,Lab,1
Lynne,Featherstone,LibDem,1
Andrew,George,LibDem,1
Cheryl,Gillan,Con,1
Damian,Green,Con,1
Greg,Hands,Con,1
Charles,Hendry,Con,1
Kate,Hoey,Lab,1
Stewart,Hosie,SNP,1
Nick,Hurd,Con,1
Ann,Keen,Lab,1
David,Kidney,Lab,1
David,Lepper,Lab,1
Andrew,MacKay,Con,1
Anne,Main,Con,1
Humfrey,Malins,Con,1
Theresa,May,Con,1
Mark,Oaten,LibDem,1
George,Osbourne,Con,1
Richard,Ottaway,Con,1
Mike,Penning,Con,1
Nick,Raysford,Lab,1
Linda,Riordan,Lab,1
Andrew,Selous,Con,1
Andrew,Slaughter,Lab,1
Robert,Smith,LibDem,1
Phyllis,Starkey,Lab,1
Andrew,Stunell,LibDem,1
Ian,Taylor,Con,1
Matthew,Taylor,LibDem,1
Emily,Thornberry,Lab,1
Paddy,Tipping,Lab,1
Des,Turner,Lab,1
Shailesh,Vara,Con,1
Keith,Vaz,Lab,1
Charles,Walker,Con,1
Michael,Weir,SNP,1
Ann,Winterton,Con,1
Pete,Wishart,SNP,1
Tony,Wright,Lab,1