BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[bananarepublic]

Self employed NI is 8% not 41%.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/nic.htm

(note that the limits and upper rate have changed over the years).

Yes I know!!!

Its 8% up to the upper profits limit then 1% ever after. Therefore for higher rate tax payers the marginal rate is 40% (tax) + 1% NI, i.e. 41%

Below the upper profits limit for NI, the rate will be 20% + 8% ie 28%.

[SLB]

Response from my MP

Response from Edward Davey MP:

“Following your letter, I have written to Alistair Darling, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order to relay to the Government your concerns about the provisions in Section 58 of the Finance Act 2008. Please find a copy of my letter to Alistair Darling enclosed. I will forward any response to you as soon as I receive it.

Thank you for making me aware of this. I have – in the last week – received several representations from constituents on this, and had not previously been aware of it. This is clearly a bad hangover from the IR35 days, and worse still, retrospective which, in my view, is immoral.

I hope to have an update for you soon.”



Copy of letter sent to Alistair Darling:

“Please find enclosed a copy of the letter I have received from my constituent in regard to Section 58 of the Finance Act 2008.

The proposal made under this section of the Finance Act will have negative financial implications for my constituent and his family, as he stands to lose a large amount of the income he has earned since [ccyy].

I would appreciate a full report on Section 58 and its implications. Why was the decision taken to include a retrospective element to these changes? I would also be grateful if you could comment on [my name] situation. Does the Government believe that it is fair for individuals, like [my name], to be financially penalised in a retrospective manner like this?

This should be changed in your next budget. Retrospective legislation hitting anyone is bad, but to hit lone IT contractors earning modest salaries is absolutely unacceptable.

I would be extremely grateful for your comments on this matter.

I look forward to hearing from you.”

[SantaClaus]

Excellent SLB! Looks like Ed Davey is very onside.

Response from Edward Davey MP:

“Following your letter, I have written to Alistair Darling, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order to relay to the Government your concerns about the provisions in Section 58 of the Finance Act 2008. Please find a copy of my letter to Alistair Darling enclosed. I will forward any response to you as soon as I receive it.

Thank you for making me aware of this. I have – in the last week – received several representations from constituents on this, and had not previously been aware of it. This is clearly a bad hangover from the IR35 days, and worse still, retrospective which, in my view, is immoral.

I hope to have an update for you soon.”



Copy of letter sent to Alistair Darling:

“Please find enclosed a copy of the letter I have received from my constituent in regard to Section 58 of the Finance Act 2008.

The proposal made under this section of the Finance Act will have negative financial implications for my constituent and his family, as he stands to lose a large amount of the income he has earned since [ccyy].

I would appreciate a full report on Section 58 and its implications. Why was the decision taken to include a retrospective element to these changes? I would also be grateful if you could comment on [my name] situation. Does the Government believe that it is fair for individuals, like [my name], to be financially penalised in a retrospective manner like this?

This should be changed in your next budget. Retrospective legislation hitting anyone is bad, but to hit lone IT contractors earning modest salaries is absolutely unacceptable.

I would be extremely grateful for your comments on this matter.

I look forward to hearing from you.”

[SantaClaus]

I have no intention of paying the surcharge. I have written to my tax office stating the facts and asking them to provide a proof of posting. Update in 28 days

If you don't get any joy, ask for an email trail under the Freedom Of Information Act and Data Protection Act. Start giving them a hard time.

HMRC didnt send me an enquiry letter for my 2004/05 tax return, but decided to send me a closure notice for that year.
When I wrote to them, they claimed they had sent a letter within the allowed timeframe and produced a "copy" with the correct date.

I suspect they concocted a new letter and backdated it, a retrospective letter if you like

So I am requesting proof of posting, copies of follow-up letters and an email trail (under the Freedom Of Information Act and Data Protection Act).

[bollox]

Sounds like refusal of the application was part of the MP game plan. Probably keeping their powder their dry whilst getting the marker down. Yay.

TAF4 - I have to agree, I cant believe MontP would have gone to the JR without sufficient evidence to merit a JR, this legislation is wrong on so many levels :- retrospection/human rights/legitimate expectation/parties being granted favourable treatment - it shouldnt have been too hard to produce enough !

If they are keeping their powder dry for the big day in court , then fair play to them, however have to say the affect on morale for most of us at the time was not good !

[BrilloPad]

Response from Edward Davey MP:

“Following your letter, I have written to Alistair Darling, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order to relay to the Government your concerns about the provisions in Section 58 of the Finance Act 2008. Please find a copy of my letter to Alistair Darling enclosed. I will forward any response to you as soon as I receive it.

Thank you for making me aware of this. I have – in the last week – received several representations from constituents on this, and had not previously been aware of it. This is clearly a bad hangover from the IR35 days, and worse still, retrospective which, in my view, is immoral.

I hope to have an update for you soon.”



Copy of letter sent to Alistair Darling:

“Please find enclosed a copy of the letter I have received from my constituent in regard to Section 58 of the Finance Act 2008.

The proposal made under this section of the Finance Act will have negative financial implications for my constituent and his family, as he stands to lose a large amount of the income he has earned since [ccyy].

I would appreciate a full report on Section 58 and its implications. Why was the decision taken to include a retrospective element to these changes? I would also be grateful if you could comment on [my name] situation. Does the Government believe that it is fair for individuals, like [my name], to be financially penalised in a retrospective manner like this?

This should be changed in your next budget. Retrospective legislation hitting anyone is bad, but to hit lone IT contractors earning modest salaries is absolutely unacceptable.

I would be extremely grateful for your comments on this matter.

I look forward to hearing from you.”

Excellent news

[KiwiGuy]

Response from Edward Davey MP:

“Following your letter, I have written to Alistair Darling, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order to relay to the Government your concerns about the provisions in Section 58 of the Finance Act 2008. Please find a copy of my letter to Alistair Darling enclosed. I will forward any response to you as soon as I receive it.

Thank you for making me aware of this. I have – in the last week – received several representations from constituents on this, and had not previously been aware of it. This is clearly a bad hangover from the IR35 days, and worse still, retrospective which, in my view, is immoral.

I hope to have an update for you soon.”



Copy of letter sent to Alistair Darling:

“Please find enclosed a copy of the letter I have received from my constituent in regard to Section 58 of the Finance Act 2008.

The proposal made under this section of the Finance Act will have negative financial implications for my constituent and his family, as he stands to lose a large amount of the income he has earned since [ccyy].

I would appreciate a full report on Section 58 and its implications. Why was the decision taken to include a retrospective element to these changes? I would also be grateful if you could comment on [my name] situation. Does the Government believe that it is fair for individuals, like [my name], to be financially penalised in a retrospective manner like this?

This should be changed in your next budget. Retrospective legislation hitting anyone is bad, but to hit lone IT contractors earning modest salaries is absolutely unacceptable.

I would be extremely grateful for your comments on this matter.

I look forward to hearing from you.”

Well done

[orientalist]

Letters

Response from Edward Davey MP:

“Following your letter, I have written to Alistair Darling, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order to relay to the Government your concerns about the provisions in Section 58 of the Finance Act 2008. Please find a copy of my letter to Alistair Darling enclosed. I will forward any response to you as soon as I receive it.

Thank you for making me aware of this. I have – in the last week – received several representations from constituents on this, and had not previously been aware of it. This is clearly a bad hangover from the IR35 days, and worse still, retrospective which, in my view, is immoral.

I hope to have an update for you soon.”



Copy of letter sent to Alistair Darling:

“Please find enclosed a copy of the letter I have received from my constituent in regard to Section 58 of the Finance Act 2008.

The proposal made under this section of the Finance Act will have negative financial implications for my constituent and his family, as he stands to lose a large amount of the income he has earned since [ccyy].

I would appreciate a full report on Section 58 and its implications. Why was the decision taken to include a retrospective element to these changes? I would also be grateful if you could comment on [my name] situation. Does the Government believe that it is fair for individuals, like [my name], to be financially penalised in a retrospective manner like this?

This should be changed in your next budget. Retrospective legislation hitting anyone is bad, but to hit lone IT contractors earning modest salaries is absolutely unacceptable.

I would be extremely grateful for your comments on this matter.

I look forward to hearing from you.”

Given this response just a query, is there any mileage raising with our MEP's as we may be pursuing the EHRC route?

[PlaneSailing]

Excellent SLB! Looks like Ed Davey is very onside.

Yes he does. In fact he's not new to the plight of contractors...

From Hansard 19 July 2000:

Mr. Davey: The most significant negative point, however, is IR35, with which we disagree profoundly. The abuse on which the Government have tried to clamp down is far more narrow than Ministers have made it out to be. Measures to clamp down on tax avoidance could have been more narrowly targeted and far more effective. The way in which the Government have chosen to act means that many small companies in the information technology sector will be seriously hit.

[Little'Old Me]

IR35 did not just hit IT contractors - but although they were the Target. It hit all contractors - even Accountants! Our contracts were usually shorter, or included other types of work - but could in many cases be considered under IR35! Book-keepers are a good example - how many work at client premises, some even sub-contract to Accountants.

Accountants & Book-keepers have a "trade", which is why we had no problems being self-employed, but when many of us switched over to Ltd companies - IR35 then would not take that into account. But I have yet to see any Accountant or Book-keeper apply IR35 to themselves....... or been pick on by the HMRC in the way only IT-contractors have.