BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[PlaneSailing]

Why are they bothering?

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!!!

Can we ask them them a different question: 'When did the HMRC claim
that that Padmore did NOT apply to the scheme'!

[SantaClaus]

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!!!

I want a front row seat when this gets read out in court

[poppy01]

Freedom of Information seems to be a very powerful tool. Almost like a truth serum for government. I wonder how far we can go with these requests. Could we for instance request copies of all emails between the treasury and Special Compliance Office pertaining to the decision to introduce S58?

On second reading of the FOI request reply, the government is actually incorrect. Of course they claimed it was always their view that Padmore applied, they did so in the 2008 Finance Bill and subsequent letters to scheme members. This should have been the answer to the request.

[SantaClaus]

... 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.....

Maybe we should start a No.10 petition on this. Something like "do you think that repayment of MPs expenses should be retrospective?".

[Emigre]

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.

The more I look at the FOI response the less I understand it. Was the mistaken basis in the question:

1) that HMRC always had the view. Are they saying that HMRC didn't always have the view; or
2) that HMRC never had the view; or
3) that HMRC never communicated their view

It seems to me that they are playing games here. The only action is to revert using precise quotes and attributable sources and to ask open questions forcing them to provide/excuse everything relevant.

[MuddyFunster]

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.

I seem to remember there's a bit more to it than that. On one of the MontP letters there were some 'legal' arguments from HMRC for why we had to pay. One of them was laughable and one of them was the fact that they'd made it clear that Padmore applied to us with documentation provided earlier. When asked to see copies of this documentation, they were met with silence. It now becomes clear there is no such documentation, so one of their 'legal arguments' has just fallen flat on its 'arris.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I seem to remember there's a bit more to it than that. On one of the MontP letters there were some 'legal' arguments from HMRC for why we had to pay. One of them was laughable and one of them was the fact that they'd made it clear that Padmore applied to us with documentation provided earlier. When asked to see copies of this documentation, they were met with silence. It now becomes clear there is no such documentation, so one of their 'legal arguments' has just fallen flat on its 'arris.

This was the wording in HMRC's response to the JR application:

HMRC had made both the general public and professional market well aware of its view in 1987 that “partner” and “member of a firm” included any person entitled to a share of the profits of a partnership. HMRC say that this obviously includes a life tenant of a trust where the trustee is a partner.

That sounds like the basis of another FOI request.

[macdat]

Chase up letter sent to Michael Mates, he usually responds quite quickly so will update when I hear something .....

Had an initial acknowledgement of my 'chase up letter' to Michael Mates MP...

"Dear Mr. *******,

Mr. Mates is sorry we have not yet had a response from the Minister but,
in accordance with his standard office procedure, if this is not in the
post today, a reminder will be sent.

Yours sincerely,
Janice Dust
Secretary to Michael Mates, MP"

[Little'Old Me]

Maybe we should start a No.10 petition on this. Something like "do you think that repayment of MPs expenses should be retrospective?".

You know, thats not a bad idea! Its would not have to be for a long period, as it would be the No10 answer to the petition that is needed.

It would get a lot of support from everyone I suspect - this is an area everyone is not happy with, especially as its a waste of tax payers money........ just image how much money they could get back if the repayment was retrospective!!!!!


I would love to hear the grounds when the petition is finished, they give not to do it!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

You know, thats not a bad idea! Its would not have to be for a long period, as it would be the No10 answer to the petition that is needed.

It would get a lot of support from everyone I suspect - this is an area everyone is not happy with, especially as its a waste of tax payers money........ just image how much money they could get back if the repayment was retrospective!!!!!


I would love to hear the grounds when the petition is finished, they give not to do it!

I am on the case. Watch this space.