BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[SantaClaus]

I've already sent him an email but you can leave a message on his Blog about retrospective expenses here:

http://frankfield.co.uk/blog/q/date/...heel/#comments

The justice of a roulette wheel

From honourable member to rogue. That, thanks to retrospective and unprecedented changes Sir Thomas Legg has made to the rules on MPs' expenses, is how I feel.

Bet he doesnt print my comment:

Dear Mr Field

You may recall that MPs voted through Section 58 of the Finance Act 2008. In it, it contained a retrospective tax measure to targets thousands of freelance IT consultants. The consultants used a completely legitimate tax avoidance scheme that was disclosed to HMRC every year and was "within the rules". Tax all the way back to the year 1987 will be payable retrospectively.

So it is with some amusement that we find the very MPs who voted for this measure are now the victims of retrospective expenses.

[TaxDude]

[QUOTE=poppy01;977954]I view this as pretty much all goods news. Timms

Added my voice to the JCHR

Dear Members,

I am aware that you have been looking into the retrospective nature of BN66 (Section 58) and in particular waiting for the response from Mr Timms from the Treasury. I have noted that Mr Timms response to your committee was far from detailed and in reality he has not provided any of the information you requested.
I can personally testify that if I had to pay this retrospective charge, it would ruin me financially and have untold consequences for my family so it’s particularly hard that the politicians who make these judgements don’t even feel the need to justify or defend their actions even when asked by an important committee of Parliament.

At this point in time, I don’t even know what amounts I would need to pay back and basically living life in limbo which is adding incredible stress to my family life and marriage.

It’s quite amusing hearing about Members of Parliaments needing to retrospectively pay back thousands of pounds – how can I be expected to pay back hundreds of thousands of pounds when I was honest on my tax forms from day 1 and not a single penny was not declared. What a shame for the government to try to resolve this issue 7 years later!

Kind Regards

[smalldog]

jut sent

Dear Sir,



I note that Mr Timms has failed to justify to your committee the reasoning behind such extreme retrospective measures for the BN66 legislation. I am personally affected by this legislation and find it deplorable that a minister is allowed to avoid questions around Human right issues arising from such legislation. Ultimately if ministers are not held to account for Human rights issues, then what are they held to account for. I for one cannot conceive anything more important for me or the public at large than my rights as a Human being.



This is made even more unsavoury when MP’s are crying foul of retrospection for what amounts to peanuts compared to my tax bill runs into 6 figures and continues to accrue interest.



Thanks for your time

[swede]

In the post......

Dear Members,


I am writing with regard to the lack of a useful response from Mr Timms of the Treasury over the retrospective nature of BN66 (Section 58). My family is personally affected by this legislation, something which I am forced to take very seriously. I do not exaggerate when I say that this has been a dark cloud looming over every single decision I make and every conversation I have with my family about its future. I am aggrieved to see that Mr Timms does not appear to be taking the role of the committee, and the livelihood of the people affected by the legislation quite so seriously.


The timing of the recent retrospective parliamentary expenses issue I find almost poetic - what better way to highlight to MP's how galling and unjust retrospective charges are. There is of course a difference in orders of magnitudes of the sums involved here. In terms of my financial ability to repay such an amount, I simply do not have that much to lose, nor could I find a way to do so. Banktrupcty and therefore my livelihood would probably be on the horizon for me.


What I fear most though is the effect this is having, and will continue to have on my family and the thousands of other families who will be potentially affected. The fact that Mr Timms treats those affected with such casual contempt by not providing you with a detailed response beggars belief.


Yours Faithfully.

[ContractIn]

Do you feel they should have pushed Timms further for a proper response?

Feel free to make your views known to them.

Their email address is on this page:
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamenta...ct_details.cfm

Please keep it civil because we don't want to alienate them when they have been sympathetic/supportive up to now.

Done

[Emigre]

JCHR Letter Sent

Dear Sir/Madam

I am personally directly impacted by the S58 FA2008 legislation. I now have a tax bill including interest of nearly £250,000 some relating back to 2003 that I knew nothing about until 12 months ago. During the period I got divorced and the majority of the marital assets went to my ex-wife. No tax liabilities were recorded in my financial statement at that time because there were no liabilities. HMRC are now trying to tell me that I have the liabilities, but I no longer have the assets. Bankruptcy beckons. This is what retrospective legislation does.

I was delighted that the JCHR elected to make enquiries of the Treasury Minister, Stephen Timms, in respect of the potential abuse of process and of human rights brought on S58 FA2008. The questions that the Committee raised with Stephen Timms gave me personally a good deal of encouragement that the Government might finally be brought to account for what is without question an abusive and disproportionate piece of legislation.

However, I find it extremely difficult to hide my disappointment that the Committee have determined against pressing HM Treasury for a more detailed and inclusive response to your letter. I am puzzled as to why the Committee were motivated enough to send the original letter and yet accepting of a dismissive response from Timms. Having read up on the work of the Committee I am moved to believe that by not following up you are letting yourselves down. Both HMRC and HMT have received many Freedom of Information Act requests regarding their actions and neither has made any relevant documents available claiming that it is not in the public interest. The legislation is in place, it has been enacted. How can it not be in the public interest to understand the process and considerations made in the drafting? The abuse of process and of those impacted continues by not providing that information.

I would ask you to reconsider your decision to drop this matter and to press Timms for some explanations. Thank you.

Yours faithfully

[sjw]

Welcome to the bn66 thread

Are you personally affected by BN66?

oh yes - 5 years with MTM. closure notices for them all.

[KiwiGuy]

Dear Sir/Madam

I am personally directly impacted by the S58 FA2008 legislation. I now have a tax bill including interest of nearly £250,000 some relating back to 2003 that I knew nothing about until 12 months ago. During the period I got divorced and the majority of the marital assets went to my ex-wife. No tax liabilities were recorded in my financial statement at that time because there were no liabilities. HMRC are now trying to tell me that I have the liabilities, but I no longer have the assets. Bankruptcy beckons. This is what retrospective legislation does.

I was delighted that the JCHR elected to make enquiries of the Treasury Minister, Stephen Timms, in respect of the potential abuse of process and of human rights brought on S58 FA2008. The questions that the Committee raised with Stephen Timms gave me personally a good deal of encouragement that the Government might finally be brought to account for what is without question an abusive and disproportionate piece of legislation.

However, I find it extremely difficult to hide my disappointment that the Committee have determined against pressing HM Treasury for a more detailed and inclusive response to your letter. I am puzzled as to why the Committee were motivated enough to send the original letter and yet accepting of a dismissive response from Timms. Having read up on the work of the Committee I am moved to believe that by not following up you are letting yourselves down. Both HMRC and HMT have received many Freedom of Information Act requests regarding their actions and neither has made any relevant documents available claiming that it is not in the public interest. The legislation is in place, it has been enacted. How can it not be in the public interest to understand the process and considerations made in the drafting? The abuse of process and of those impacted continues by not providing that information.

I would ask you to reconsider your decision to drop this matter and to press Timms for some explanations. Thank you.

Yours faithfully

[BrilloPad]

The response from Timms is typical of the evasive attitude of HMRC to this whole issue. All that HMRC are doing is running/hiding away.

However they cant run or hide in court.....

edit : should have mentioned not my quote : apologies

[helen7]

So, given that the Judicial Review cannot actually reverse the retrospecive changes; what is it that we hope to achieve from the JR?

If HMRC have ignored the JCHR, what is to stop them ignoring the judge's recommendations at the JR?

Also, is interest being added to the MP's expenses? If not, maybe we should suggest this to somebody in the press......