BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[helen7]

'Ultimately, we are talking about £200 million'

There's that figure again....

[Lazylobster]

I haven't subscribed. However, you can read the debate here:

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/...9-10-14a.283.6

"My Lords, retrospective taxation is unfair, unjust and immoral."

Cheers
LL

[DonkeyRhubarb]

'Ultimately, we are talking about £200 million'

There's that figure again....

OK, now I get it.

HMRC had to wait 7 years to do anything about the scheme because it took that long to reach the magical £200M. So it wasn't incompetence after all.

[Ninja]

I haven't subscribed. However, you can read the debate here:

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/...9-10-14a.283.6

"My Lords, retrospective taxation is unfair, unjust and immoral."

But look how much the retrospective Port-side revaluation would have saved
"...Ultimately, we are talking about £200 million, which is a significant sum—of that there is no doubt. However, the ports of this country are responsible for 95 per cent of its trade. I am sure that the Minister would agree...."

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Parliamentary Question

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/...9-16a.289115.h

"Section 58 of the Finance Act 2008 will apply to a small number of individuals..."

2000 small?

[PlaneSailing]

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/...9-16a.289115.h

"Section 58 of the Finance Act 2008 will apply to a small number of individuals..."

2000 small?

A 1,139 vote majority at the last election for Ms Mcarthy-Fry.
So 2,000 people would definitely seem a lot to her!

[helen7]

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/...9-16a.289115.h

"Section 58 of the Finance Act 2008 will apply to a small number of individuals..."

2000 small?

Individuals

Really Mr Timms....How about the families who will loose their houses, savings, marital breakup, bankruptcy. Doesn't sound like 'individuals' that are affected to me.

tantrum:

[Emigre]

I haven't subscribed. However, you can read the debate here:

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/...9-10-14a.283.6

"My Lords, retrospective taxation is unfair, unjust and immoral."

"Retrospection is in the news at the moment. A newspaper article this morning suggested that where people had been overpaid child credit through no fault of their own, in future they would not have to repay it. I do not know whether that is the case but, if it is, it is a good thing."

Another case of discrimination? No chance perhaps that the majority in receipt of these benefits are NL voters while our majority may vote elsewhere?

[seadog]

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/...9-16a.289115.h

"Section 58 of the Finance Act 2008 will apply to a small number of individuals..."

2000 small?

Hi DR

Does this answer need a response from members of the Forum stating that 2000 will be affected (by HMRC's own admision ) that many will be made bankrupt or lose their homes.

If she accept these statements of fact, does she still agree that it was "fair proportionalte and in the public interest"

[seadog]

But look how much the retrospective Port-side revaluation would have saved
"...Ultimately, we are talking about £200 million, which is a significant sum—of that there is no doubt. However, the ports of this country are responsible for 95 per cent of its trade. I am sure that the Minister would agree...."

In the report it quotes the following.

"The conduct of the Valuation Office Agency (for VOA read HMRC)has been shambolic and the culpability of the Government in failing to address this manifest injustice and instead choosing to fight among themselves as to who is to blame rather than to get a grip on the situation before it is too late is lamentable. It is something that people will remember."


Also

"On the matter of retrospection, the Government's own guidance is set out in Regulation 14(6). The central case of the argument that we are again putting to the Government is that, contrary to the Treasury's own guidelines, no impact assessment was made of the effect of backdating these taxes. Similarly, no consultation was undertaken. As stated in Hansard on 6 October 2008 at col. 351W, no assessment has been made of the effect on the wider economy, a charge that was acknowledged by the Government in Hansard on 14 January 2009 at col. 761W. The policy also contravenes the Treasury's own guidance on retrospective taxation as stated in Hansard on 9 October 2008 at col. 802W. I say again: no assessment of the impact of backdating was made, no consultation exercise was undertaken and no assessment was made of the impact on the wider economy. The policy contravenes the Treasury's own guidance. In many ways, these charges show the chaos at the heart of government on this issue."

Both these statements apply in equal measure to S58

I suspect the Port companies are better organised,funded and being advised by Lobby companies which is how they are getting questions in the Lords.

Can we get these lords on our side asking awkward questions.