BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[TAF4]

Whilst I'm writing it is mainly due to the efforts of Donkey that most of us remain sane, so please don't feel bad every time something goes against us. We all know we are fighting the system, and all MP's will blame each other whilst not actually lancing the boil. This will have to go all the way to the European Courts, but we should not stop fighting...

MajorGowen...

WHS

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Surely they could have "sold it" as ensuring that the UK Tax System is certain, thus immediately bringing in more revenue from Foreign Investors when we most need it.

I agree this is one way they could try and position it but you can bet that Labour would put an altogether different spin on it which would be much more appealing to the media and joe public.

"Government flies in the face of High Court ruling to let tax dodgers off the hook"

The other fly in the ointment are the LibDems. They have set out their stall as the party most committed to fighting tax avoidance. Whilst they may have voted against BN66, I'm not convinced they'd support its repeal now even as a matter of principle.

[smalldog]

to small for the budget

WHS

I have to say I never expected us to get a mention in the budget, the budget deals with somewhat bigger fish.

My motivation behind writing letters is not to get it struck out as part of the budget, more to get some higher level visibility on this subject as there's just a chance someone with big enough boots might decide to quietly let it drop pre November, or even post November if appeal rules it needs to go to Europe. The last thing the government would do is publicly drop it, as DR quite rightly says Labour would splash it all over the press. However they can drop it and keep it off the radar if required and there is enough pressure and ultimately common sense applied by our new government.

[silver_lining]

Donkey, et al,

Here is the link (in case anyone has mislaid it) to where the Finance Bill was debated:

House of Commons General Committee

As David Gauke was so vociferous regarding the legislation then surely he has a duty of care to rectify this now he is in power.

To do nothing other than state that it should run it's course through the courts when he was so opposed to retrospective legislation is dereliction of duty and shows the new Government does not want the UK Tax law to be certain.

Donkey, could the letter writers knock something up as I think this response is unacceptable.

MajorGowen...

This was a worthwhile effort, DR et al. Nothing ventured etc.......

However, this u-turn is not at all acceptable; you either believe in the legislation or you don't Based on what has been offered in terms of considerations for repealing i.e. state of the public finances..... I am not sure how the legal principle and the public purse are related in the legal sense, this is a downright insulting.

Secondly, the fact the High Court or the judiciary has found in favour in the first test has nothing to do with anything. If that is they key test, why debate the legislation at all, just throw it out there and let the judiciary test it......... if the courts endorse it at the first test, then it must be right.

This is as clear an example you will get that completely undermines everything these parties claim to stand for.....

This is black and white, no grey areas.

[BolshieBastard]

ucking great. I knew these unts, once they were elected and in office would sing a different song. They sounded oh so interested and concerned just to buy some votes.

Well, I didnt fall for it. I've thought for some time we're ucked. I dont expect to win a court case either. That is, except for one against you know who, for tulip advice and maybe, just maybe, negligence.

Utter utter load of wank.

I wont lose as much as some people here will. For them, Im truely sorry and I do feel for you. I wish you good luck.

[Toocan]

...I knew these *****, once they were elected and in office would sing a different song. They sounded oh so interested and concerned just to buy some votes.

Hold on - there was never going to be an announcement in the budget speech - and it was always highly unlikely that a "budget note" would appear on the subject. We need to see the draft bill which will be published in the next few days.

The letters that have been sent have opened this subject - our next task is to push our case. Have a look at some of the stuff that was in the budget - tax allowances for companies who keep their IP offshore; a relaxation of the pension contribution rules - there is scope here for us to get a fair hearing.

But we are going to need more letter senders - and if possible for a few people to phone or visit their MP. So speak up - are we up for carrying on with our campaign?

[swede]

"Channel the Rant"

ucking great. I knew these unts, once they were elected and in office would sing a different song. They sounded oh so interested and concerned just to buy some votes.

Well, I didnt fall for it. I've thought for some time we're ucked. I dont expect to win a court case either. That is, except for one against you know who, for tulip advice and maybe, just maybe, negligence.

Utter utter load of wank.

I wont lose as much as some people here will. For them, Im truely sorry and I do feel for you. I wish you good luck.

Your ranting is valid and completely understandable. But even if they say they think that something is wrong, it doesn't mean they would unilaterally be able to do anything about it.

This last exercise was just about raising the profile and letting them know we are here and not going away any time soon. I personally think that they're a bit hamstrung now that it's with the courts though, but if one or more of them decides to take up our cause then that's great news. This line of attack was always going to be a long shot but still, a worthwhile episode nonetheless.

I do think that politicians have egos though - and after having won an election we should be using that to our advantage. Maybe after not being in power for so long, they have forgotten that they (you know - the ones that WE elected) are able to do something about it now?

Perhaps another letter (i) reminding them that we voted for them to change things, and (ii) explaining that climbdowns such as Mr Gauke's are not a very good first step in that direction.


BTW: If this is to end up in the european court, do we need to start saying hello to MEP's as well?


Swede

[TAF4]

So speak up - are we up for carrying on with our campaign?

Damn right! I don't see any downside to remaining a thorn in their side.

[swede]

are we up for carrying on with our campaign?

YES!!!!!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

This was a worthwhile effort, DR et al. Nothing ventured etc.......

However, this u-turn is not at all acceptable; you either believe in the legislation or you don't Based on what has been offered in terms of considerations for repealing i.e. state of the public finances..... I am not sure how the legal principle and the public purse are related in the legal sense, this is a downright insulting.

Secondly, the fact the High Court or the judiciary has found in favour in the first test has nothing to do with anything. If that is they key test, why debate the legislation at all, just throw it out there and let the judiciary test it......... if the courts endorse it at the first test, then it must be right.

This is as clear an example you will get that completely undermines everything these parties claim to stand for.....

This is black and white, no grey areas.

I understand where you're coming from SL but strictly speaking it's not a u-turn.

It would only be a u-turn if they'd committed to repeal and then reneged on it. However they were always careful to say that, whilst they opposed it, they couldn't promise to reverse it if they got into office.

You might think this is weasly but then we are dealing with politicians.