BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[Retro]

Letter

I too got the standard letter today forwarded from my MP. I did however get a good cover note from John Redwood, my MP, saying, amoung other things:

'I myself dislike retrospective legislation and think the Government should have handled this differently'.

He goes on to recognise that I am not the only person to object and he mentions that the number of applications 'means that the courts may have the opportunity to take a view on the legislation'.

He has added a final hand written note to me 'I will continue to press them as I am most unhappy about it'.

I will be responding back to him soon with an appropriate letter - and I am delighted he is on our side.
Fog

Yes I got the same covering letter from John Redwood yesterday although without the hand-written note, so you're slightly favoured and I'm slightly peeved. John Redwood is an excellent MP and it's great that his views on retrospective legislation tally with ours.

[Toocan]

We'll do what's right and fair

I too got the standard letter today forwarded from my MP. I did however get a good cover note from John Redwood, my MP, saying, amoung other things:

'I myself dislike retrospective legislation and think the Government should have handled this differently'.

He goes on to recognise that I am not the only person to object and he mentions that the number of applications 'means that the courts may have the opportunity to take a view on the legislation'.

He has added a final hand written note to me 'I will continue to press them as I am most unhappy about it'.

I will be responding back to him soon with an appropriate letter - and I am delighted he is on our side.
Fog

It is reassuring that there are still MP’s that do fight for the interests of those who elected them.

I envy you as my MP is a member of the Labour party. He sings from the party hymn sheet and does almost nothing for those who he was elected to represent. It was Labour MP’s, and Labour MP’s alone, who decided to enact s.58 and who steered it through committee.

The events this last week concerning MP allowances/expenses provide a parody of our situation. When I say ‘our’ I refer only to those affected by s.58 FA 2008 – I realise there are trolls who lurk here too.

The MP’s expenses system allows an MP to declare what is his primary home. Capital gains tax legislation also allows MP’s to declare which is their primary residence. But the law does not demand that the MP make the same declaration for both pieces of legislation. Some MP’s (apparently) have been making different declarations as to which is their primary home depending on the form they’re filling out!

This has allowed them to have all bills for a property paid by the tax payer while at the same time avoiding capital gains tax when they sell the property and so not only make a profit, but make a tax free profit.

For no money down they bought a property; taxpayers paid the interest on the mortgage and all the household bills; the property was sold and the MP (not the taxpayer) kept 100% of the capital gain. The MP’s treated the taxpayer as a negative interest bank. Those property developers in the s.58 schemes may find this particularly galling.

It’s legal, so it’s not tax evasion.

But it certainly is, without a shadow of a doubt, tax avoidance.

They have exploited a “loophole” in the tax laws to gain where others would not have been able to - due to the way they have structured their affairs.

Brannigan might say they had an “unfair advantage”.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

But it certainly is, without a shadow of a doubt, tax avoidance.

I think they would probably use the term tax planning.

[TykeMerc]

This sort of thing is another reason that I support your cause. Tax avoidance schemes have been used by the ultra rich and politicians for years, yet when others exploit similar loopholes they drop on you like a ton of bricks. Dropping on you with retrospection just makes it even more immoral.

I'm glad that John Redwood seems interested in your case as he is a political hard hitter so his support might help.

I've sent a couple of DR's letters to my MP with no effect, but I didn't expect much as she's a Labourite who sticks to their party line without question. Shame really as her predecessor would stand up to the party on matters of concience until she retired at the last General Election.

[MajorGowen]

Fair, proportionate and in the public interest

Hello,

Does anyone have Stephen Timms as an MP?

If they do it may be worth asking him if he is now going to use his powers to retrospectively claim back the money from MP's due to misuse of the expenses.

To use Stephen Timms' own words "The Government has always limited the use of retrospection as far as possible, using it for the worst cases of avoidance to ensure fairness and certainty for all taxpayers."

Surely this is about as bad a case of tax avoidance as you can get. Using tax payers money to pay mortgage payments on a property, then flipping the property so they can greedily claim the profit when it is sold without paying any tax makes the IOM scheme look morally good.

Again to use Stephen Timms' own words, these are surely "...exceptional circumstances.." and one where "..the Government reserves the right to use retrospection.." and it is DEFINITELY "...fair, proportionate and in the public interest to do so."

Not sure about the rest of you, but I would wager that retrospective taxation and interest will not be levied.

MajorGowen...

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I've sent a couple of DR's letters to my MP with no effect, but I didn't expect much as she's a Labourite who sticks to their party line without question.

These may be an endangered species in 12 month's time.

[TykeMerc]

These may be an endangered species in 12 month's time.

Indeed, but probably not in this constituency more's the pity. I didn't agree with her predecessors Politics, but at least she would stand up as a real representative of her electorate and not just toe the paty line like a good little drone.

[nuffsaid]

A popular day for my postman

I got 4 letters yesterday...
1) Standard bullsh*t response from El Timms.
2) Standard HMRC notification that they're enquiring into my 08 accounts.
3) Closure notices for 4 of my 7 years.
4) A revised Statement of Account for 02.


In typical HMRC incompetence style...
They've skipped 2 years because my returns don't agree with my accounts and they'd like to know why... even though they've answered these themselves in the very same letter.
One year is out by 1.5k, but then they state "accounts are to 31 March" and "return is to 5 April". Just a guess but maybe the 1.5k falls in the 6 day window?
The other year is out because they have copied the return amount from the prior year. Surely they must have thought that 2 years with exactly the same return amounts is more than just a coincidence? They obviously didn't bother double checking their figures or even proof reading their letter.
In one of the closure notices they have suggested that I owe 2 different amounts and none of these tally with what's specified on the govt gateway.
In the revised statement of account for 02 they've also suggested that I make "payments on account" becoming due in Jan & Jul 2003??? They're taking this time travel too literal.

What a farce!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Hello,

Does anyone have Stephen Timms as an MP?

If they do it may be worth asking him if he is now going to use his powers to retrospectively claim back the money from MP's due to misuse of the expenses.

To use Stephen Timms' own words "The Government has always limited the use of retrospection as far as possible, using it for the worst cases of avoidance to ensure fairness and certainty for all taxpayers."

Surely this is about as bad a case of tax avoidance as you can get. Using tax payers money to pay mortgage payments on a property, then flipping the property so they can greedily claim the profit when it is sold without paying any tax makes the IOM scheme look morally good.

Again to use Stephen Timms' own words, these are surely "...exceptional circumstances.." and one where "..the Government reserves the right to use retrospection.." and it is DEFINITELY "...fair, proportionate and in the public interest to do so."

Not sure about the rest of you, but I would wager that retrospective taxation and interest will not be levied.

MajorGowen...

Timms et al have no shame or morals. They will still piously decry us as tax cheats while they have been pulling every stunt in the book to line their own pockets.

It is almost impossible to argue our case in the face of such double standards and hypocrisy.

Forget tax counsel opinion, next time I'm in the market for a tax avoidance arrangement, I'll make sure it's one that's been exploited by Politicians.

[Toocan]

Timms et al have no shame or morals. They will still piously decry us as tax cheats while they have been pulling every stunt in the book to line their own pockets.

It is almost impossible to argue our case in the face of such double standards and hypocrisy.

Forget tax counsel opinion, next time I'm in the market for a tax avoidance arrangement, I'll make sure it's one that's been exploited by Politicians.

I wonder what Jane Kennedy and Stephen Timms expenses looked like?