BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[BrilloPad]

Hello Guys, a bit of advise/morale boosting please.

A couple of months ago I received a notice of assessment for the 2001/2002 period, I sent this over to MontP and received a confirmation email from them that this had been appealed.

Today I have received revised SA for the 2001/2002 (5 figures) and so I called the tax office to make sure that they had notification of the appeal. A 'charming lady' informed me that they no history of the appeal notice and that I should payup now. After laughing and slamming the phone down on her (difficult with a mobile) I am now left wondering what to do next.

I will of course send the SA over to MontP and I have emailed them regarding the appeal but is there anything else I need to do?

Thanks in advance for any help, after 7 years I'm getting a bit fed up with the whole thing to be honest and the other half is none too pleased.

Anyhow I wont go down without a fight (physical if need be), and thanks for the forum entries as it's great to know that I'm not the only one putting up with this sh!te.

Why did you call HMRC?

You should go via montpelier. I will try to get you upgraded so I can PM you.

Please dont repeat the fight stuff. There are some reading this who think that people who post about this stuff on public forums will do it in real life (). Lets have no distractions and focus on the main issue. Plenty of stuff to be done : writing to MPs etcetc.

[Cugel]

I called HMRC and asked if an appeal had been lodged against this revision to my SA then cut the call off, I fail to see how this would cause a problem.

In the end it's my liability, my house, my life at risk I would be an idiot not to keep myself aware of my own tax situation, its not as if I have received a tonne of letters in the last few years keeping me up to date.

As for the last part, if I have taken from me everything that I've worked for over the last 20 years by this corrupt government and their flunkies at HMRC then whats the point.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I was wondering, its obvious from the petition poll we seem to have a bit of support from non-members with regard to retrospective legislation in general, many willing to sign the petition.

Wonder of any of them would be interested in sending a suitably drafted letter to their MP's.

Quite a few non-members have contacted me for a letter template.

[Lazylobster]

Did the Tax Payers Alliance ever come back to anyone with intention of support or otherwise ?

LL

[ALMAC]

Ctd

Just a thought for anyone looking to purchase a CTD.

I have had 15k of premium bonds for the last 4 years and have found that the average returns have been around 3% which is tax free.

You can purchase up to 30k and if you have a partner they can also have 30k.

With interest rates so low it is not a bad idea.

Although the return is not guaranteed, I have never had a Year under 1.9% and there is also the chance of winning some large sums each month ( I asound like a premium bond salesman - honest I'm not on commission).

I am going to get some more in lieu of CTD.

They are both goverment owned so I don't think that they are any riskier than a CTD in terms of HMRC.

Any body with any thoughts I'd like to hear them.

[Fog]

Output of meeting with John Redwood

This morning myself and my husband met with John Redwood. The overcome was a positive one.

I explained the situation to him (although he was quite up to speed already which is a good sign). I focused on the restropsective nature of the clause, the deal that had already been struck from another scheme, the mis-leading of parliament by Jane Kennedy, the thousands or ordinary hard-working people and their families that would be impacted (particularly the 4 that I am aware of in his constituency) and of course, the personal impact this is having on myself and my husband. (By way of note my husbands very successful business has now had to close this week - it has meant 10 more people out of work - as we could not afford to risk putting anymore savings into it because we have had to tie up what little we have for a worst case scenario..... even though the pipeline for his business is better than ever).

The key points from the meeting are as follows:
1. He re-iterated that he was totally against IR35 and he had worked to ensure it would be over-turned in the 2005 Conservative manifesto as he recognised the impact on ordinary working people. He said, as far as he was concerned, it was quite clear at the time that it would force more people off-shore.
2. He termed the situation 'legalised theft' by the HMRC and he is appalled by it all. The planning for the 2010 manifesto has not yet fully commenced but he said he would do everything he can to ensure that the retrospective nature of this was over-turned.
3. When asked about leading an inquiry he was quite dismissive - not becuase he did not appreciate that there had obviously been issue - but becuase he mentioned that inquiry's don't often lead anywhere, mis-leading happens very regularly and there is little/no thing ever done even if it is proved. He felt it would be a waste of effort.
4. He had still not had an answer from the Treasury (I mentioned that none of the other MP's had either as far as i was aware) and he said he would continue to demand a response. He explained he was very frustrated by the the fact he had one secretary who manages to correspond with all enquiries and they have 750,000 staff and cannot respond to as few..... He said this happens frequently. I explained that I was aware of over 2000 people being impacted and that letters have already gone off to 121 MP's - many in multiples. I also re-iterated the impact of retropection on UK business - and the appalling message it sends to anyone wanting to invest.
5. When I asked about appropriate action he said he would do 3 things (obviously he had a few suggestions from me!!); Firstly he would be enaging with his colleagues on this - particularly David Gauke MP and he would look to get some responses and traction on our behalf - including a response from the Treasury. Secondly he will personally work to ensure that this is included in the Conservative Manifesto to be over-turned should they come to power. Thirdly, and finally he would take up my personal case (NI and UTR requested).

I would appreciate everyone's thoughts but my key questions for everyone are:
1. Should we reduce our effort on the mis-leading case against Jane Kennedy in light of its seemingly futile outcome?
2. Why does everyone not try and see their MP in person? The meeting took 25 minutes only - and it has made it real with John Redwood now - he has seen the white's of my eyes.... especially with the back up of DR's documents.
3. How else can we keep up the pressure?

Fog
(Apologies for long rambling message - thought I would get feedback back to everyone fast....)

[SLB]

This morning myself and my husband met with John Redwood. The overcome was a positive one.

I explained the situation to him (although he was quite up to speed already which is a good sign). I focused on the restropsective nature of the clause, the deal that had already been struck from another scheme, the mis-leading of parliament by Jane Kennedy, the thousands or ordinary hard-working people and their families that would be impacted (particularly the 4 that I am aware of in his constituency) and of course, the personal impact this is having on myself and my husband. (By way of note my husbands very successful business has now had to close this week - it has meant 10 more people out of work - as we could not afford to risk putting anymore savings into it because we have had to tie up what little we have for a worst case scenario..... even though the pipeline for his business is better than ever).

The key points from the meeting are as follows:
1. He re-iterated that he was totally against IR35 and he had worked to ensure it would be over-turned in the 2005 Conservative manifesto as he recognised the impact on ordinary working people. He said, as far as he was concerned, it was quite clear at the time that it would force more people off-shore.
2. He termed the situation 'legalised theft' by the HMRC and he is appalled by it all. The planning for the 2010 manifesto has not yet fully commenced but he said he would do everything he can to ensure that the retrospective nature of this was over-turned.
3. When asked about leading an inquiry he was quite dismissive - not becuase he did not appreciate that there had obviously been issue - but becuase he mentioned that inquiry's don't often lead anywhere, mis-leading happens very regularly and there is little/no thing ever done even if it is proved. He felt it would be a waste of effort.
4. He had still not had an answer from the Treasury (I mentioned that none of the other MP's had either as far as i was aware) and he said he would continue to demand a response. He explained he was very frustrated by the the fact he had one secretary who manages to correspond with all enquiries and they have 750,000 staff and cannot respond to as few..... He said this happens frequently. I explained that I was aware of over 2000 people being impacted and that letters have already gone off to 121 MP's - many in multiples. I also re-iterated the impact of retropection on UK business - and the appalling message it sends to anyone wanting to invest.
5. When I asked about appropriate action he said he would do 3 things (obviously he had a few suggestions from me!!); Firstly he would be enaging with his colleagues on this - particularly David Gauke MP and he would look to get some responses and traction on our behalf - including a response from the Treasury. Secondly he will personally work to ensure that this is included in the Conservative Manifesto to be over-turned should they come to power. Thirdly, and finally he would take up my personal case (NI and UTR requested).

I would appreciate everyone's thoughts but my key questions for everyone are:
1. Should we reduce our effort on the mis-leading case against Jane Kennedy in light of its seemingly futile outcome?
2. Why does everyone not try and see their MP in person? The meeting took 25 minutes only - and it has made it real with John Redwood now - he has seen the white's of my eyes.... especially with the back up of DR's documents.
3. How else can we keep up the pressure?

Fog
(Apologies for long rambling message - thought I would get feedback back to everyone fast....)

EXCELLENT work and thanks for the update!! That is very encouraging news, especially the part about him trying to get it included in the Tory manifesto for 2010!

Do you know if he has heard anything from the LibDem MP Edward Davey as he was trying to join forces with the Tories to help fight this?

[Emigre]

This morning myself and my husband met with John Redwood. The overcome was a positive one.

I explained the situation to him (although he was quite up to speed already which is a good sign). I focused on the restropsective nature of the clause, the deal that had already been struck from another scheme, the mis-leading of parliament by Jane Kennedy, the thousands or ordinary hard-working people and their families that would be impacted (particularly the 4 that I am aware of in his constituency) and of course, the personal impact this is having on myself and my husband. (By way of note my husbands very successful business has now had to close this week - it has meant 10 more people out of work - as we could not afford to risk putting anymore savings into it because we have had to tie up what little we have for a worst case scenario..... even though the pipeline for his business is better than ever).

The key points from the meeting are as follows:
1. He re-iterated that he was totally against IR35 and he had worked to ensure it would be over-turned in the 2005 Conservative manifesto as he recognised the impact on ordinary working people. He said, as far as he was concerned, it was quite clear at the time that it would force more people off-shore.
2. He termed the situation 'legalised theft' by the HMRC and he is appalled by it all. The planning for the 2010 manifesto has not yet fully commenced but he said he would do everything he can to ensure that the retrospective nature of this was over-turned.
3. When asked about leading an inquiry he was quite dismissive - not becuase he did not appreciate that there had obviously been issue - but becuase he mentioned that inquiry's don't often lead anywhere, mis-leading happens very regularly and there is little/no thing ever done even if it is proved. He felt it would be a waste of effort.
4. He had still not had an answer from the Treasury (I mentioned that none of the other MP's had either as far as i was aware) and he said he would continue to demand a response. He explained he was very frustrated by the the fact he had one secretary who manages to correspond with all enquiries and they have 750,000 staff and cannot respond to as few..... He said this happens frequently. I explained that I was aware of over 2000 people being impacted and that letters have already gone off to 121 MP's - many in multiples. I also re-iterated the impact of retropection on UK business - and the appalling message it sends to anyone wanting to invest.
5. When I asked about appropriate action he said he would do 3 things (obviously he had a few suggestions from me!!); Firstly he would be enaging with his colleagues on this - particularly David Gauke MP and he would look to get some responses and traction on our behalf - including a response from the Treasury. Secondly he will personally work to ensure that this is included in the Conservative Manifesto to be over-turned should they come to power. Thirdly, and finally he would take up my personal case (NI and UTR requested).

I would appreciate everyone's thoughts but my key questions for everyone are:
1. Should we reduce our effort on the mis-leading case against Jane Kennedy in light of its seemingly futile outcome?
2. Why does everyone not try and see their MP in person? The meeting took 25 minutes only - and it has made it real with John Redwood now - he has seen the white's of my eyes.... especially with the back up of DR's documents.
3. How else can we keep up the pressure?

Fog
(Apologies for long rambling message - thought I would get feedback back to everyone fast....)

Outstanding!!! I would read "long rambling message" like that everyday for the positives that it conveys. THANK YOU.

A manifesto commitment from a party that will almost certainly form the next Government would be an exceptional result.

I hear the point about JK but think we should continue to pursue all angles.

I received a response to my follow up letter to Paul Beresford who has said that he will forward to George Osborne and to the Chancellor and has agreed to a meeting if appropriate once replies have been received.

It feels like the first day of spring!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I will second that.

At the moment, official Tory party policy is not to overturn the legislation. John Redwood has influence but on his own he may not be able to reverse this.

So the question is, what would make them change their mind? We know they were vehemently opposed to it on principle and raised amendments accordingly. But now they are concerned because of the state of the public finances. Two possible arguments are:

a) It won't raise as much money as the Govt claims because many people don't have the means to pay. If people file for bankruptcy, then HMRC will get nowt.

b) It will cost the taxpayer ££££££££ fighting this through the UK and European courts. And, as MontP have already stated, even if we lose on the HR point, they will still fight S58 on techical grounds ie. they don't accept that it achieves its purpose. This could drag on for 5 years or more.

Do we need to start thinking about pushing this line of argument?

PS. did anyone see Panorama this week? HMRC spent £10M chasing a guy who had evaded £3M, even though he went to prison, and so far haven't collected a single penny. The state is even paying for the guy's legal aid.

[ContractIn]

I've prepared some awkward followup letters if anyone is interested.

Drop me an email and indicate whether:

a) you've had no response from your MP at all

b) you've had a response but they haven't raised concerns with the Treasury

c) you've had a response, they have raised it with the Treasury but now you are bored waiting and want to hit them with something different

Hi DR

I am now ready for letter "C"

Do you want me to send you a PM or private e-mail?

EDIT: Just re-read your posting. I'll drop you an e-mail!!

Cheers
CI