BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[DonkeyRhubarb]

my letter to Miss W

Nice one, and good to have you back with us. I missed the fat cat.

[swede]

nice

my letter to Miss W

'We dont do it to them??

May I you refer you to the attached letter from the Joint Committee on Human Rights to Stephen Timms with regard to Section 58 of the Finance Act 2008.
In addition there is a judicial review underway which is challenging the retrospective elements of the legislation.

http://www.publications.parliament.u...3/13308.htm#a6


This was passed without fanfare last year and it contains retrospective changes going back to 1987.
How strange MP's are now so upset about a few thousand pounds, when there some 2000 individuals who now face financial ruin
as a result of this unprecedented violation of natural justice.'

"unprecedented violation of natural justice". like it.

[smalldog]

Dear Miss Widdecombe, I wanted to draw your attention to my current plight.

I have been using a legitimate tax planning scheme since 2001. HMRC Have known about the operation of this scheme since 2001 and have taken no action to challenge or close the scheme down. In 2008 HMRC encouraged the government to implement BN66 to effectively close down the scheme but with retrospective effect dating back to 1987. This has now left me in a position of having a tax bill under appeal and subject to a judicial review running into the hundreds of thousands of pounds and threatening me with financial ruin.

It struck me of the similarities around retrospective action and the distaste by many MP’s related to the expenses scandal. I note your quotes around it not being implemented for anyone else so why MP’s. At present upto 2000 scheme members are in the same position as me and not just having to payback what amounts to small sums for MP’s, compared to people like me being threatened with bankruptcy due to a piece of retrospective legislation.

I would be interested to know your views on the legitimacy of this retrospection not only for MP’s but also the scheme members mentioned. There seems to be more and more threats of retrospectivity in all sorts of areas, and if allowed to proceed set dangerous precedents for the future, not only for MP’s but also the general public. I would like to draw your attention to the JCHR letters to the Rt Hon Stephen Timms:

http://www.publications.parliament.u...3/13308.htm#a6

and the survey of people affected:

http://www.publications.parliament.u...3/13308.htm#a7

Many thanks for your time

[lekker]

my 2c

Dear Miss Widdecombe,

Retrospective Changes and Natural Justice

Firstly, I would like to state my support for your stance on the Legg review of Members' expenses, as you stated in your interview for Radio 4 on the 12th October 2009. I also applaud you for your common sense approach, before this furore, in claiming appropriate expenses.

I would like to draw a comparison between the situation that MPs find themselves in and some tax legislation introduced in the last budget. The legislation was first introduced as Budget Note 66 (BN66) in March 2008 and the legislation was included in the 2008 Finance Bill as Clause 55, and subsequently enacted as Section 58.

The comparison I am drawing is that the tax treatment was changed retrospectively by this legislation, resulting in a large number of individuals (whilst following the then current tax law) facing significant tax liabilities. I refer you to the following Parliament references to highlight the retrospective nature of the legislation and the human impact involved.

"http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200809/jtselect/jtrights/133/13308.htm#a6"
"http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200809/jtselect/jtrights/133/13308.htm#a7"

My hope is that, now MPs have experienced the unfair effect of retrospective changes, they will fight for the natural justice for a larger group of people who are not just being asked to re-pay a few thousand pounds, but are having financial ruin forced upon without choice. If you are in agreement, I would ask that you put pressure on the Treasury to a) instruct HMRC to stop enforcing BN66 and b) reverse the legislation at the earliest opportunity.

I thank your for your time in reading this letter.

Yours sincerely,

[DonkeyRhubarb]

My email to Anne

Dear Ms Widdecombe,

You have been quoted as saying:

"we don't apply retropective rules to others so why should it apply to us"

However, I only wish this were true.

In last year's budget, Parliament approved legislation to impose a 7-year retrospective tax (with interest) on 2000 people. As a result, many families stand to lose their homes and some people are facing the prospect of bankruptcy.

This is currently under investigation by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and they have written the following letter to the Government.

http://www.publications.parliament.u...3/13308.htm#a6

In addition, an application for Judicial Review has been granted by the High Court.

Perhaps you would be prepared to speak out about this as well as the retrospective rules on MPs expenses.

Yours sincerely

[PlaneSailing]

Dear Ms Widdecombe,

You have been quoted as saying:

"we don't apply retropective rules to others so why should it apply to us"

However, I only wish this were true.

In last year's budget, Parliament approved legislation to impose a 7-year retrospective tax (with interest) on 2000 people. As a result, many families stand to lose their homes and some people are facing the prospect of bankruptcy.

This is currently under investigation by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and they have written the following letter to the Government.

http://www.publications.parliament.u...3/13308.htm#a6

In addition, an application for Judicial Review has been granted by the High Court.

Perhaps you would be prepared to speak out about this as well as the retrospective rules on MPs expenses.

Yours sincerely

Where was this quote published? I'm having difficulty digging it up.

Also, I sent the same email to Bill Etherington last night as I was
incensed by his 'it's not fair' rant on Channel 4 news. He's a
Labour MP!


Surprisingly he's not replied.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Where was this quote published? I'm having difficulty digging it up.

I was just quoting what someone else on here said she had remarked.

However, even if she didn't say this, there's no doubt what she thinks.

http://www.kentnews.co.uk/kent-news/...spx?news=local

She is definitely the most outspoken and, as far as I can tell, her record on claiming expenses is clean as a whistle, so this is not motivated by self-interest.

I especially liked this.

“If we can’t govern ourselves with the rules of natural justice, then we certainly aren’t fit to govern anybody else.”

You said it Anne!

[PlaneSailing]

I was just quoting what someone else on here said she had remarked.

However, even if she didn't say this, there's no doubt what she thinks.

http://www.kentnews.co.uk/kent-news/...spx?news=local

She is definitely the most outspoken and, as far as I can tell, her record on claiming expenses is clean as a whistle, so this is not motivated by self-interest.

I especially liked this.

“If we can’t govern ourselves with the rules of natural justice, then we certainly aren’t fit to govern anybody else.”

You said it Anne!

That's good enough for me. I'll email her tonight!

[PurpleTurtle]

From Today's Daily Mail (sorry...I read all the papers!)

"Labour MPs are openly defying a call by Gordon Brown to repay expenses by demanding requests from an auditor be tested in court. As the backlash grew against Sir Thomas Legg's review, Alan Simpson indicated he had no intention of returning £500 that he has been accused of over-claiming in cleaning bills.
Rejecting the Prime Minister's calls for MPs to settle their repayment demands to draw a line under the scandal, the Nottingham South MP said Sir Thomas had got it 'profoundly wrong'. If he thinks that the principle of him coming in and retrospectively re-writing the rules would stand up before the courts, then I think he should test it before the courts', Mr Simpson said today."

Touche old son, touche!!

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Queen Ann Quotes

That's good enough for me. I'll email her tonight!

Folks,

If you're struggling to find what Ann actually said have a look here:

http://www.kentnews.co.uk/newsStory.aspx?id=28901
“What I will say is this; it is unlawful retrospectively to change the law.”

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehou...-letters.thtml
“There’s a big question over the legality of this… I think he has exceeded his remit - I think he has done so to meet a very widespread concern that people were using the second allowance as a form of income, but in fact that is a concern for the other review from Sir Christopher Kelly.”
The legal case is clear - the Legg commission has imposed a retrospective charge on maintenance expenses; that can and should be resisted as such a charge is in breach of the law.

Thanks Ann. You're the best! So hopefully when she starts reading her emails she'll go public on this other matter as well.