BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[SantaClaus]

I think I'll send a letter to HMRC asking if can claim my Virgin bill on expenses, just like Smith's husband.

It's all about "fairness" after all

And while I'm at it, Id like to apply for the position of tax avoidance tzar.

[seadog]

Meeting with my MP

I had a meeting with my MP Helen Southworth last Friday. She was chief financial secretary between 2002 to 2005.

She read through my paper which I had prepared but although it was too lenghty for her to comment on at the meeting, it did contain a list of eleven probing and pertinent questions.

if and when we get the answers I think they will help our case.

Her main thrust was "what did I want her to do.". I said in the first instance I wanted answers to the questions and then a second meeting to see what could be done for us.

It was all over in half an hour because there was a queue of others waiting to see her. A bit like the doctors surgury.

She said she could not interfere with the legal appeals going on at the moment but did promise to send my questions to the Chancellor for a repsonse.

She thinks it may take up to 4 weeks and we have agreed to set up another meeing.

Conclusion:- Slow but steady progress.

If anyone want to see my questions please send PM

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Any replies from MPs?

If anyone has received replies, then drop me a line with what they said and I will see if I've got a suitable followup.

If it is several weeks since your MP referred the matter to the Treasury, and you haven't heard anything, then it's time to start chasing. I have got a letter prepared for this which chucks in a few other points.

Don't let them off the hook!!!

Thanks
DR

[MrRaincheck]

Had a response from Nick Raynsford:

Dear Mr ......
Thankyou for your letter of February 5th about Section 58 of the Finance Act 2008.

I am afriad that MPs cannot intervene in judicial proceedings or halt any bankruptcy proceedings, and I would urge your to seek legal advice on the matter if you have not already done so.

I can however ask the Government to explain what the thinking behind this Section of the new act is, and what discretion there is in its implementation. I am writing to say that I have now written to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Rt Hon Stephen Timms MP, asking him to comment on these points.

I will of course contact you as soon as I receive a reply.

[ContractIn]

If anyone has received replies, then drop me a line with what they said and I will see if I've got a suitable followup.

If it is several weeks since your MP referred the matter to the Treasury, and you haven't heard anything, then it's time to start chasing. I have got a letter prepared for this which chucks in a few other points.

Don't let them off the hook!!!

Thanks
DR

Have had a quick response from my follow up letter stating will raise my additional questions with the treasury, and acknowledgement that have yet to get response from the treasury from first letter.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Had a response from Nick Raynsford:

Dear Mr ......
Thankyou for your letter of February 5th about Section 58 of the Finance Act 2008.

I am afriad that MPs cannot intervene in judicial proceedings or halt any bankruptcy proceedings, and I would urge your to seek legal advice on the matter if you have not already done so.

I can however ask the Government to explain what the thinking behind this Section of the new act is, and what discretion there is in its implementation. I am writing to say that I have now written to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Rt Hon Stephen Timms MP, asking him to comment on these points.

I will of course contact you as soon as I receive a reply.

He's done exactly what we wanted ie. added another letter to the growing pile sitting at the Treasury.

Give it one month from the date of his letter, then send the "chase" letter.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Priceless

Everyone should read this, including "Mr B"!!!

In a letter several of us received from Stephen Timms last year, he stated:

The Government does not believe that the scheme achieved its purpose since the 1987 legislation clearly applied to it.

So, we submitted the following FOI request to HMRC:

With regard to Section 58, Finance Act 2008, HMRC have claimed that it was always their view that the 1987 ‘Padmore’ legislation applied to the scheme in question. Can HMRC confirm when they first made people aware of this view, and describe how this was communicated to taxpayers, professional advisors and internally within HMRC. Can they also supply copies of said notification.

Today, HMRC responded with this which totally contradicts what Timms said:

I can confirm that HMRC do not hold the information you have requested. This is because your question is posed on a mistaken basis; that is that HMRC have claimed that it was always their view that the 1987 “Padmore” legislation applied to the scheme in question.

So, the Government and HMRC don't agree on something as fundamental as this. All I can say is they better get their story straight when they get to court!!!

[ASB]

Everyone should read this, including "Mr B"!!!

In a letter several of us received from Stephen Timms last year, he stated:

The Government does not believe that the scheme achieved its purpose since the 1987 legislation clearly applied to it.

So, we submitted the following FOI request to HMRC:

With regard to Section 58, Finance Act 2008, HMRC have claimed that it was always their view that the 1987 ‘Padmore’ legislation applied to the scheme in question. Can HMRC confirm when they first made people aware of this view, and describe how this was communicated to taxpayers, professional advisors and internally within HMRC. Can they also supply copies of said notification.

Today, HMRC responded with this which totally contradicts what Timms said:

I can confirm that HMRC do not hold the information you have requested. This is because your question is posed on a mistaken basis; that is that HMRC have claimed that it was always their view that the 1987 “Padmore” legislation applied to the scheme in question.

So, the Government and HMRC don't agree on something as fundamental as this. All I can say is they better get their story straight when they get to court!!!

God, you couldn't make it up......

[Toocan]

The UK government are corrupt

The UK government are corrupt

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6004038.ece

[poppy01]

In a letter several of us received from Stephen Timms last year, he stated:

The Government does not believe that the scheme achieved its purpose since the 1987 legislation clearly applied to it.

Today, HMRC responded with this which totally contradicts what Timms said:

I can confirm that HMRC do not hold the information you have requested. This is because your question is posed on a mistaken basis; that is that HMRC have claimed that it was always their view that the 1987 “Padmore” legislation applied to the scheme in question.

I don't think they entirely contradict one another, all Timms said was that the government believed the 1987 legislation applied, not that they claimed so to us or anyone else. The best that can be said of them is they really did believe this (as likely as Jacqui Smith's sisters spare bedroom being her main residence) but that they never once deigned to tell any of those under investigation they believed it, letting interest rack up over many years. Of course the truth is they were utterly incompetent and had no idea how to defeat the scheme, so used a fine tooth comb to pore over the legislation and find something that was a close fit, and slipped it into the Finance bill. I do hope that when Crash introduces legislation to outlaw the ridiculous expense claims of ministers , he is equally diligent in finding legislation that makes it retrospective.... Its only FAIR after all.....