BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[PlaneSailing]

Shifty?

I've been having a look at the Treasury website (it's been a slow afternoon)
and I've found the Lobby Notes from last years Budget.

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/fina...lobbynotes.pdf

They are supposed to give a brief overview of the proposed changes.

Under Clause 55, no mention is made of them back dating any tax, it
just looks like an ordinary change.

Were they trying to hide things to stop those JCHR types meddling ????

[Ratican]

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

I have been looking - but there is nothing out there for Timms yet

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I've been having a look at the Treasury website (it's been a slow afternoon)
and I've found the Lobby Notes from last years Budget.

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/fina...lobbynotes.pdf

They are supposed to give a brief overview of the proposed changes.

Under Clause 55, no mention is made of them back dating any tax, it
just looks like an ordinary change.

Were they trying to hide things to stop those JCHR types meddling ????

The whole thing was pushed through on the quiet. Even the objections of the CIOT, ICAEW and Law Society barely caused a ripple.

I bet HMRC couldn't believe their luck that we didn't kick up a real stink at the time.

If only we'd known then what we know now.

[Emigre]

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

Timms is in East Ham which counts as Inner London so was not eligible for the second home allowance. His total expenses look relatively low compared with the rest but then we know how many squillions he made from his IT business...er hum, did someone say whilst in office? Must have misheard it.

Jane Kennedy is Liverpool and her claims appear comparatively modest. I suspect there's not much dirt to be found there, sadly other than the fact that she's a complete liar.

[helen7]

Seems HMRC have £1bn to spend catching us this year. Hopefully this will not produce a big jump in IR35 cases (I am ltd now..)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/mon...cle6182126.ece

It also seems from reading a couple of other recent articles that they are treating tax avoidance as a crime not far removed from tax evasion.

Surely there must be a way of getting this thieving government out!! and better still, asking the conservatives to commit to sorting out this war against us freelancers.

[NickNick]

Timms is in East Ham which counts as Inner London so was not eligible for the second home allowance. His total expenses look relatively low compared with the rest but then we know how many squillions he made from his IT business...er hum, did someone say whilst in office? Must have misheard it.

Jane Kennedy is Liverpool and her claims appear comparatively modest. I suspect there's not much dirt to be found there, sadly other than the fact that she's a complete liar.

You can get this sort of info from http://www.theyworkforyou.com/
Stephen Timms
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/ste...t_ham#expenses
£119,225 (605th out of 645)

and Hane Kennedy
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/jan...rtree#expenses
£151,977 (236th out of 645)

Seems you have them the wrong way round. Timms is relatively modest, infact positively frugal in Mp terms and Kennedys are slightly above average.

[lilo]

Got my reply from David Gauke

Extemely short. "I have now heard back from HM Treasure and I enclose a copy of the reply". That's it. He just attached a photocopy of the standard Timms letter that you've all received. I must admit, I am disappointed that David Gauke didn't have anything to add. His first reply had hand written notes and a transcript of the original debate attached. Perhaps he's got other more pressing things on his mind!

[OnYourBikeGB]

Standard response

Got my standard Timms response today, along with a letter from my MP, highlighting the 'aggressive' nature of the tax scheme, and how the Government had gone to some lengths considering the impact. I could practically hear the hands being washed. I replied in detail pointing out that the Timms fudges and omissions

1. I nor probably none of the individuals under enquiry were members of the scheme he referred to
2. The scheme caved in under pressure from HMRC and legal action from Montpelier. Timms et al never proved they were legally right.
3. The scheme was not identical, I checked this with Montpelier at the time, there were differences.
4. Aggressive is just a smear word, it certainly was more open for inspection than home flipping for example.
5. I have yet to hear the terms 'asset seizure' or 'backdated interest' in relation to the MPs bending of the rules.
6. I clarified the nature of the 1987 Act. Noting Timms careful use of the phrase 'retrospective in nature'.
7. Asked his for his support to prevent HMRC kicking my door in, as they came close to before.
8. That Timms assertion about taxation legislation being outside the scope of human rights is at best simplistic, and at worst complete boll*cks. (not quite so bluntly)
9. That MPs seem to have reserved retrospection for the public, certainly not for themselves.

It will probably go nowhere. I hope the Government get their faces wiped into the dirt come June. Then again, the pigs already have their snouts so deep into the trough they mightn't even notice. No matter what happens, they are wrong. One thing that occurs to me is that although I know the judge will look purely at the legality issue, we couldn't ask for a better backdrop of sleaze and hypocrisy. Anyway, roll on June.

[KiwiGuy]

No information on DPA

well got my DPA back, very very basic, no letters, no emails, no information with information with regards to myself, im a little bit disapointed really, probably need to send a follow up request, what have other people recieved?

[Toocan]

Got my standard Timms response today, along with a letter from my MP, highlighting the 'aggressive' nature of the tax scheme, and how the Government had gone to some lengths considering the impact. I could practically hear the hands being washed. I replied in detail pointing out that the Timms fudges and omissions

1. I nor probably none of the individuals under enquiry were members of the scheme he referred to
2. The scheme caved in under pressure from HMRC and legal action from Montpelier. Timms et al never proved they were legally right.
3. The scheme was not identical, I checked this with Montpelier at the time, there were differences.
4. Aggressive is just a smear word, it certainly was more open for inspection than home flipping for example.
5. I have yet to hear the terms 'asset seizure' or 'backdated interest' in relation to the MPs bending of the rules.
6. I clarified the nature of the 1987 Act. Noting Timms careful use of the phrase 'retrospective in nature'.
7. Asked his for his support to prevent HMRC kicking my door in, as they came close to before.
8. That Timms assertion about taxation legislation being outside the scope of human rights is at best simplistic, and at worst complete boll*cks. (not quite so bluntly)
9. That MPs seem to have reserved retrospection for the public, certainly not for themselves.

It will probably go nowhere. I hope the Government get their faces wiped into the dirt come June. Then again, the pigs already have their snouts so deep into the trough they mightn't even notice. No matter what happens, they are wrong. One thing that occurs to me is that although I know the judge will look purely at the legality issue, we couldn't ask for a better backdrop of sleaze and hypocrisy. Anyway, roll on June.

100%