BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[fatbot]

2nd reply received from Gregory Barker MP (cons)

This is his reply to the second letter...

"I read your letter with interest and I understand your concerns. Accordingly, I have written to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, enclosing a copy of your letter, so that he receives it in good time before the emergency budget of 22 June.

When I receive his reply, I will write to you again."

Maybe we will have comment from the Treasury at last!

[OnYourBikeGB]

Most people have received the "standard" response. It is clear to me that this must have been approved/sanctioned by the Treasury, including this sentence:



Now, here's the interesting thing.

No-one has actually received a response from a Treasury Minister, like the letters we used to get from Kennedy & Timms.

Why not?

Moreover, it would be easy for them to do what Timms did and simply decline to comment in light of the legal proceedings but they haven't done this.

Why not?

Eventually the Government will have to state its position but it's obvious that they wish to remain tightlipped at the moment.

Why?

I don't know but it's certainly intriguing.

I think you summed it before. They can't be seen to be going soft on 'tax dodgers' while making all the other cuts. It's a political hot potato, but they also know the ramifications for international investment are more severe than the legendary £200m that they'll never get out of us, once word gets round on just how unstable this makes our tax system look. Is it possible that there could be a repeal and redefinition that omitted retrospection, that showed how much tougher they were going to be in future, backed with 'clarification' on a tax payers rights to certainty? Maybe too much to hope for, but I bet they wish they could have however dreamed up BN66s head on a platter. Anyway, 'intriguing' is a lot better than 'worrying'.


Joke time.

I've been getting threatening letters from HMRC for years now, that are getting more and more severe. Today I got one that had big red letters across the top that read FINAL DEMAND. Thank God, I thought, that's the last time I'll be hearing from them!

Boom Boom! Ok, I'll get my coat ...

[fatbot]

Joint Committee on Human Rights?

Did anybody have any correspondence with them?

I seem to remember hearing that the committee failed to hear back from HMRC by their deadline and therefore closed their enquiry into S.58 4,5, which was really forceful of them.

Apparently they don't have the power to change legislation but in the light of the current stage of legal proceedings and the thread's poll results, maybe they should be urged to reopen it again?

The Appeal court and Treasury might take some notice of their concerns even if HMRC are treating them as an irrelevance.

Just a thought...

[bollox]

Most people have received the "standard" response. It is clear to me that this must have been approved/sanctioned by the Treasury, including this sentence:



Now, here's the interesting thing.

No-one has actually received a response from a Treasury Minister, like the letters we used to get from Kennedy & Timms.

Why not?

Moreover, it would be easy for them to do what Timms did and simply decline to comment in light of the legal proceedings but they haven't done this.

Why not?

Eventually the Government will have to state its position but it's obvious that they wish to remain tightlipped at the moment.

Why?

I don't know but it's certainly intriguing.

isnt it because they're busy with their plans to chop billions from the budget ?

[BolshieBastard]

This is his reply to the second letter...

"I read your letter with interest and I understand your concerns. Accordingly, I have written to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, enclosing a copy of your letter, so that he receives it in good time before the emergency budget of 22 June.

When I receive his reply, I will write to you again."

Maybe we will have comment from the Treasury at last!

Well after last night saying I still hadnt got a reply and sending the second letter, today I received an almost identical response from my MP Ben Wallace.

He said he has read my email with interest and recognises my concerns. He has therefore written to the Financial secretary, Mark Hoban asking for his response to my call for S58 to be repealed.

[StellaFan]

Wrote to the chancellor but got a reply this morning which came from hmrc

"While the Government understands your concerns and the difficulties you and others currently face, it is not in a position to agree to your request. The Government is, in general, opposed to retrospective legislation and, when in Opposition, voted against the introduction of the provisions to which you object. The legislation in question is currently the subject of judicial review by the courts and it is best dealt with there"

So they are agreeing that the law was not right but say they can do nothing?

[RingStinger]

Tell me Osborne hasn't brushed this off by letting HMRC 'deal' with our concerns......

[StellaFan]

Tell me Osborne hasn't brushed this off by letting HMRC 'deal' with our concerns......

I hope you will understand that the large amount of correspondence the Chancellor receives makes it impossible for him to reply to all of it personally. Your letter has been transferred to hmrc and I have been asked to reply

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Well, I wasn't expecting that.

It's funny how no-one from the Government seems to want to put their name to anything. Treasury Ministers are hiding behind Tory MPs and now the Chancellor has passed us off to HMRC to do the dirty work.

Unbelievable.



EDIT

I will be pressing my MP to get a written response from a Minister.

At least Kennedy & Timms sent signed letters. This lot seem totally gutless.

[Morlock]

Ministerial Correspondence

Tell me Osborne hasn't brushed this off by letting HMRC 'deal' with our concerns......

I hope you will understand that the large amount of correspondence the Chancellor receives makes it impossible for him to reply to all of it personally. Your letter has been transferred to hmrc and I have been asked to reply

This is to be expected. As I have said previously:

1) MPs are not obliged to deal with letters from people who aren't their own constituents.
2) A letter to an MP in their capacity as a Minister will probably be read and answered by a Ministerial civil servant.