Letter to my MP
Winging its way to my MP. What we need are 3000 other people to write to their MP. That includes all the lethargic F5 button pushers. If you can't be bothered, please don't complain later!
P.S. I know you're reading this, Mr Justice Kenneth Parker. Maybe you might feel an ounce of guilt when you read it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr Corbyn
You may recall I have written to you on several occasions regarding the retrospective effect of Section 58 of the 2008 Finance Bill, which seeks to close a tax avoidance loophole, but unfairly punishes myself and 3000 other people for tax planning that was perfectly legitimate at the time.
The effect will be to claim back tax + interest for the past 7 years which in my case amounts to approximately £150,000.
I can confirm to you that a judgement was handed down in the High Court in favour of the Inland Revenue and thus myself and 3000 other families will shortly be facing bankruptcy.
Originally, you wrote to me with a reply from Stephen Timms who claimed HMRC were “clarifying” existing legislation and not using retrospection. This was his justification to parliament for allowing the 2008 Finance Bill to receive Queen’s assent. In fact parliament was misled by Timms and HMRC, as the majority of MPs who voted for this bill did so without knowing they were voting for a retrospective tax change. Also, many people I know have had replies from their MPs stating they did not know so many people would be so badly affected by this legislation.
I was somewhat surprised to read in the Judicial Review judgement that Mr Justice Kenneth Parker thought that the use of retrospection was allowed in this case because he deemed it to be “proportionate”. I cannot understand how bankrupting 3000 families can be considered proportionate and justify applying a tax change retrospectively.
Consequently I was shocked and appalled to read in the same week that the Supreme Court had decided the Government was wrong to freeze the bank accounts of five suspected terrorists (newspaper article enclosed) and they have been allowed to keep the money.
However much you disagree with the tax avoidance scheme I used, I would have been better off being a terrorist as I would have received much fairer treatment from the courts.
Just to stick the knife in further, I then read an article that MPs would not have to pay back their expenses retrospectively. So I guess it’s one rule for us ordinary citizens and another rule for our leaders.
The case will now be appealed and eventually find it’s way to the Supreme Court and finally Strasbourg. Price Waterhouse Coopers also have a Judicial Review pending and KPMG will be going straight to the European Court of Human Rights. However, HMRC have shown they can be ruthless in the past and I await a call from bailiffs and letters of demand even though the case is being appealed.
The use of retrospective taxation is extremely uncompetitive for the UK, as businesses and individuals no longer face certainty of their tax position as they once did.
The govt. can no longer hide behind the lie that they are “clarifying” an existing law. What they have done is retrospectively change a law and that creates a precedent and gives them license to use retrospection on a whim and whenever they please. No business in their right mind will operate out of the UK with this level of uncertainty. As you no doubt know, many businesses are already leaving for friendlier tax regimes.
As the “little man” in this cat and mouse game between the government and tax advisors, I feel I have been extremely unfairly treated.
I would hope that you would raise this matter in Parliament. The 2008 Finance Bill should never have been allowed to be voted through and probably wouldn’t if it had been known that it’s intent was retrospective legislation rather than a “clarification”. If there is such a mechanism to do so, the bill should be put to a re-vote.
I really despair of what is happening in this country to our freedoms and civil liberties. They are being taken away one by one.
My family, including my 1 year old daughter now face certain bankruptcy and losing our home. No doubt, we will be able to join the benefits queue, and so the effect to the govt. may be an even greater loss than the tax they unfairly wish to gain from me.
Yours sincerely
SantaClaus
Winging its way to my MP. What we need are 3000 other people to write to their MP. That includes all the lethargic F5 button pushers. If you can't be bothered, please don't complain later!
P.S. I know you're reading this, Mr Justice Kenneth Parker. Maybe you might feel an ounce of guilt when you read it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr Corbyn
You may recall I have written to you on several occasions regarding the retrospective effect of Section 58 of the 2008 Finance Bill, which seeks to close a tax avoidance loophole, but unfairly punishes myself and 3000 other people for tax planning that was perfectly legitimate at the time.
The effect will be to claim back tax + interest for the past 7 years which in my case amounts to approximately £150,000.
I can confirm to you that a judgement was handed down in the High Court in favour of the Inland Revenue and thus myself and 3000 other families will shortly be facing bankruptcy.
Originally, you wrote to me with a reply from Stephen Timms who claimed HMRC were “clarifying” existing legislation and not using retrospection. This was his justification to parliament for allowing the 2008 Finance Bill to receive Queen’s assent. In fact parliament was misled by Timms and HMRC, as the majority of MPs who voted for this bill did so without knowing they were voting for a retrospective tax change. Also, many people I know have had replies from their MPs stating they did not know so many people would be so badly affected by this legislation.
I was somewhat surprised to read in the Judicial Review judgement that Mr Justice Kenneth Parker thought that the use of retrospection was allowed in this case because he deemed it to be “proportionate”. I cannot understand how bankrupting 3000 families can be considered proportionate and justify applying a tax change retrospectively.
Consequently I was shocked and appalled to read in the same week that the Supreme Court had decided the Government was wrong to freeze the bank accounts of five suspected terrorists (newspaper article enclosed) and they have been allowed to keep the money.
However much you disagree with the tax avoidance scheme I used, I would have been better off being a terrorist as I would have received much fairer treatment from the courts.
Just to stick the knife in further, I then read an article that MPs would not have to pay back their expenses retrospectively. So I guess it’s one rule for us ordinary citizens and another rule for our leaders.
The case will now be appealed and eventually find it’s way to the Supreme Court and finally Strasbourg. Price Waterhouse Coopers also have a Judicial Review pending and KPMG will be going straight to the European Court of Human Rights. However, HMRC have shown they can be ruthless in the past and I await a call from bailiffs and letters of demand even though the case is being appealed.
The use of retrospective taxation is extremely uncompetitive for the UK, as businesses and individuals no longer face certainty of their tax position as they once did.
The govt. can no longer hide behind the lie that they are “clarifying” an existing law. What they have done is retrospectively change a law and that creates a precedent and gives them license to use retrospection on a whim and whenever they please. No business in their right mind will operate out of the UK with this level of uncertainty. As you no doubt know, many businesses are already leaving for friendlier tax regimes.
As the “little man” in this cat and mouse game between the government and tax advisors, I feel I have been extremely unfairly treated.
I would hope that you would raise this matter in Parliament. The 2008 Finance Bill should never have been allowed to be voted through and probably wouldn’t if it had been known that it’s intent was retrospective legislation rather than a “clarification”. If there is such a mechanism to do so, the bill should be put to a re-vote.
I really despair of what is happening in this country to our freedoms and civil liberties. They are being taken away one by one.
My family, including my 1 year old daughter now face certain bankruptcy and losing our home. No doubt, we will be able to join the benefits queue, and so the effect to the govt. may be an even greater loss than the tax they unfairly wish to gain from me.
Yours sincerely
SantaClaus
Comment