BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[OnYourBikeGB]

Perhaps they just need a prompt. There is nothing stopping you or me or anyone else here making a complaint. You can even do it anonymously...

Serious Fraud Office
Fraud Reporting Line
Tel. 020 7239 7388
This is a dedicated telephone number for you to report instances of suspected serious or complex fraud to us. The Fraud Reporting Line is open between 09.00 and 17.00. An answer phone will record calls at other times.

Tax Office
To report tax fraud in the UK:
"call the Tax Evasion Hotline on 0800 788 887 (open Monday to Friday from 8.00 am to 8.00 pm, Saturday and Sunday 8.00 am to 4.00 pm) and HMRC will do something about it. You don't need to leave your name and address. All the information will be looked at seriously to determine the most appropriate action. What HMRC will be able to do might depend on how much information you can give, so it's important to provide as many specific details as possible."

Any of you under age? There's always Childline. Perhaps we'll save that one for Mr YouKnowWho

lol, very true. But they didn't need to be prompted to come after us, they were just able to find us through information they had 'acquired'. Perhaps they don't have anyone who reads the Daily Telegraph?

[NickNick]

Interesting side note to the expenses stuff coming out recently and not connected directly to this thread, but the average MP claims half a million quid in expenses whilst in office, whether in power or opposition.

[silver_lining]

It is one of those depressing days reading all the 'replies' received from MPs that appeared to be onboard... I never expected anything else but the scratched record from Timms and Co, so that I can understand.....

I personally believe dialogue has taken place behind the scenes on the MontP scheme between those who were on board and Timms & Co. My guess is that Timms & Co are obviously presenting the scheme as extremely aggressive and in their eyes 'extracting the urine'. While this may be true (subjection), this always results in the legal points getting lost as emotions get in the way. Coupled with the fact that one of the JRs is imminent, people are probably just losing interest until the JR admission is decided...

So in terms of what we can actually do from this point forward is difficult...

I think momentum is now winding down given the first of the JRs is coming up and hence people are reserving judgement. Labour are immovable on this point, so without MPs on board and fighting it... its very hard.

I must admit I do have concerns that PWC got to go first, given the sums of money involved on that side. My concern here is that unless the legal points are demonstrated in clear black and white to make the legal decision easy...depending on the respective judge, you are always left with an element of emotion and public consideration.... and given whats going on with economy, scandals... all showing people milking systems and people... it could go either way....

Just wondered had anyone presented their opinions to MontP in respect of elements to consider in their presentation.... I know we are not lawyers etc. but if nothing else it might provide food for thought and new avenues..... My worry is assuming they are covering all the bases when in fact they are not..

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I must admit I do have concerns that PWC got to go first, given the sums of money involved on that side. My concern here is that unless the legal points are demonstrated in clear black and white to make the legal decision easy...depending on the respective judge, you are always left with an element of emotion and public consideration.... and given whats going on with economy, scandals... all showing people milking systems and people... it could go either way....

The oral hearing only lasts 30 minutes so I doubt it will delve into the appellants' financial circumstances. If the JRs get the go-ahead, then I would expect our's and PwC's to be amalgamated, and then it will be clear to the Judge that the majority of people affected are of more modest means.

Just wondered had anyone presented their opinions to MontP in respect of elements to consider in their presentation.... I know we are not lawyers etc. but if nothing else it might provide food for thought and new avenues..... My worry is assuming they are covering all the bases when in fact they are not..

You are right to be concerned. At the end of the day, there is no-one more motivated than the chap staring down the barrel of the gun.

We are feeding back to MontP (and PwC) anything useful we dig up eg. through FOI etc.

[Toocan]

Rant Warning!

Interesting side note to the expenses stuff coming out recently and not connected directly to this thread, but the average MP claims half a million quid in expenses whilst in office, whether in power or opposition.

Nick, isn't this the natural conclusion of Brown's "Doing the right thing"? Look at what happened to Major with his "Back to basics". People are not perfect and politicians are the last that should be touting this form of fundamentalism.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6296035.ece

None the less, this has all happened on Labour's watch. It was Labour that changed the expenses system so that this could happen.

The Labour party appear to be either naive or in denial – they blame the world for the financial crisis – but the truth is that the “financial crisis” could not have happened with the regulatory system that was in place up to 1997. It was Labour’s changes that allowed the banks do to what they did. Gordon Brown removed the protections that were put in place following the 1930’s crisis.

What about pensions? Remember the pain and the scandals of the 1990’s? Major put in place measure to address the problems – Greedy Gordon came in and in 1997 removed the tax credit from pensions – reducing their income by 10% every year. Now look at the pension problems (Pension Crisis next?) we have today. We’re all going to have to work for longer because of this.

And despite all the extra tax that Gordon has collected, including all of his attacks on the IT and contractor section, the country is in bigger debt than ever. Where has all the money gone? Where indeed.

(rant machine off)

[DonkeyRhubarb]

FOI Response

A month ago, I submitted the following FOI request to the Treasury.

This Freedom of Information Request concerns the retrospective measure announced in Budget Note 66 on 12th March 2008.

I would like to request copies of all documentation that the Treasury holds on this measure, including memoranda, reports, minutes of meetings etc.

The Treasury have responded as follows:

I confirm that the Treasury holds information falling within the description of your request and that some of this information is already available within the public domain.

We consider that the remainder of the information we hold in respect of your request engages the following exemptions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000:
- Section 27 (1)(a) relating to ‘International relations’.
- Section 29 (1)(a) relating to the ‘economic interests of the UK’
- Section 35(1)(a) relating to the ‘formulation and development of government policy’.
- Section 42 (1) relating to ‘legal professional privilege’

We also consider that section 36 relating to ‘the effective conduct of public affairs’ may be engaged in the alternative.

These are qualified exemptions and we are required to balance the public interest between disclosure and non-disclosure. By virtue of section 10(3) of the Act, where public authorities have to consider the balance of the public interest in relation to a request, they do not have to comply with the request until such time as is reasonable in the circumstances.

We always aim to reply to requests in full, even when the balancing of the public interest is required; however in this case, the Treasury has not yet resolved the conflicting considerations. We therefore need to take some additional time to assess whether the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing it and intend to respond by 15 June. If it appears that it will take longer than this to reach a conclusion we will keep you informed.

If they do refuse to release the information, then I intend to appeal to the Information Commissioner.

I wonder what they've got to hide?

[MuddyFunster]

Meeting with Vince Cable

I've just got back from a meeting with Vince Cable.

It was a positive meeting. To cut a long story short, he seemed very interested in the information that I gave him (very kindly provided by Ratican) which mainly focused on the human rights issues, HMRC's lack of action for seven years and Jane Kennedy's economical use of the truth. He said he'll take it up with HMRC (not Timms) and will write to the JCHR.

What was worrying was his response to a comment he made in a previous letter re: parliament's decision to go after any tax avoidance users retrospectively. The jist of it is that if anyone is involved in any tax avoidance and wilfully lowering their tax bill, they will be gone after retrospectively, irrelevant of whether what they did was legal at the time or not. It's like they now think the word 'evasion' is the same as 'avoidance' in their eyes. This is justified by the schemes being too complicated to police and too numerous, so apparently this is the only way to combat them going forward in their opinion. This rather ties in with HMRC's legal argument that other people paid tax, so you should've done so as well.

It seems like there's no thought given to the legality of this, the message it sends out about the UK and how are people going to be expected to pay, or even know about this possibility. It's ******* unbelievable! BN66 is just the start if this is the way things are going.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

The jist of it is that if anyone is involved in any tax avoidance and wilfully lowering their tax bill, they will be gone after retrospectively, irrelevant of whether what they did was legal at the time or not.

There were no retrospective measures in this year's budget. My guess is they will only try this again if they win the Section 58 case.

[bananarepublic]

FOI Response

These are qualified exemptions and we are required to balance the public interest between disclosure and non-disclosure

Presumably these are the same exemptions that MP's used to try and block publication of their expenses. Its all just a smokescreen to cover up their venality and incompetence.

Vince Cable Meeting

His response about retrospection is a bit worrying. After all where will it stop - MP expenses?

The convention, now it seems ditched with tax planning is for the government to issue a warning that usage of a particular scheme will be retrospectively legislated at some future point back to when the warning was made. This saves everybody a lot of bother. An example was the 2004 warning on employment related securities.

I suspect the absense or otherwise of such a warning in our case may be of major importance in the outcome of the JR. Our contention is that we never received such a warning. The governments position is that their "successful closure" against the Suo Motu scheme in 2003 was just that. This is why the government bang on about it in all their replies.

It is of course total nonsense as the settlement was secret as were its terms. I only found out through a colleague what had happened even though he had signed a non disclosure agreement! The legal opinion that may have prompted the scheme provider to settle is still on the IR35 Amnesty site. (I suspect the legal action by Montpelier may have been a stronger reason though). Anyway the non use of the arguments by the HMRC between 2003 and 2008 suggests that they thought the opinion was bollocks. Perhaps we should put in an FOI request in connection with this?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

The governments position is that their "successful closure" against the Suo Motu scheme in 2003 was just that. This is why the government bang on about it in all their replies.

I'm not sure about that. I think it is the fact that the original 1987 legislation itself was retrospective. They are saying that this was the warning that such schemes would be dealt with retrospectively.

Of course, there are substantial differences between the retrospection used in 1987 and Section 58. The latter resulted in no-one receiving additional tax demands. The Government wants to blur the distinction but this is important from a human rights perspective.