BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[centurian]

Students are kicking up a stink about a potential increase to £9K a year, and it's not even retrospective!

It's not even prospective for them - in that they will have graduated before the fees increase.

[andyc2000]

It's not even prospective for them - in that they will have graduated before the fees increase.

It costs nearly that to send my sprog to nursery - might get him out protesting...

[scubadiver]

Dave Hartnett, Permanent Secretary for Tax at HMRC, Taking a Break on the Taxpayer

Good to see that Dave Hartnett isn't letting the tough financial climate get him down.

Britain's top tax official enjoys £6,000 four-night stay at luxury hotel in India... to make a 30-MINUTE speech

It's also nice to see journos being fed the usual cr*p: He said: ‘In my opinion, winning tax disputes at all costs is no way forward in the modern world. We are committed to handling disputes in a non-confrontational way and collaborating with customers wherever possible.’ Mr Hartnett said the UK had a ‘customer-centric strategy’ which he said aimed to ‘maximise revenue flows, reduce costs for all parties and encourage customer satisfaction’.

[centurian]

Better than that - check out one of the links from the article

Gravy train rolls on for civil service as they spend £7million on FIRST CLASS travel | Mail Online

The worst offender was HM Revenue & Customs, which spent £2.7 million. The bill included £371.67 for scandal-hit boss Dame Lesley Strathie to travel to Darlington for a ‘staff event’.

[OnYourBikeGB]

Good to see that Dave Hartnett isn't letting the tough financial climate get him down.

Britain's top tax official enjoys £6,000 four-night stay at luxury hotel in India... to make a 30-MINUTE speech

It's also nice to see journos being fed the usual cr*p: He said: ‘In my opinion, winning tax disputes at all costs is no way forward in the modern world. We are committed to handling disputes in a non-confrontational way and collaborating with customers wherever possible.’ Mr Hartnett said the UK had a ‘customer-centric strategy’ which he said aimed to ‘maximise revenue flows, reduce costs for all parties and encourage customer satisfaction’.

What a two-faced, freeloading scumbag.

[PlaneSailing]

Is Hartnett scouting for a new job on his travels, at taxpayers expense?

Good to see that Dave Hartnett isn't letting the tough financial climate get him down.

Britain's top tax official enjoys £6,000 four-night stay at luxury hotel in India... to make a 30-MINUTE speech

It's also nice to see journos being fed the usual cr*p: He said: ‘In my opinion, winning tax disputes at all costs is no way forward in the modern world. We are committed to handling disputes in a non-confrontational way and collaborating with customers wherever possible.’ Mr Hartnett said the UK had a ‘customer-centric strategy’ which he said aimed to ‘maximise revenue flows, reduce costs for all parties and encourage customer satisfaction’.

He said: ‘In my opinion, winning tax disputes at all costs is no way forward in the modern world.'


Well Dave, let's see you move into the modern world and stop this BN66 nonsense now.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Professional Lobbyists

Can I sound people out about something.

A few people have asked me whether it would be worth getting professional lobbyists involved to help us.

Someone even contacted the following agency, who have been involved in lobbying over another piece of retrospective tax legislation in FA 2009.

The Whitehouse Consultancy | Specialists in public and parliamentary affairs

The rub is it would cost about £20k to hire them for 6 months.

I honestly don't know if they could achieve anything but it's clear they know their way round the corridors of power far better than any of us.

As with all our previous political initiatives, Montpelier could not be involved in something like this but they would not necessarily disapprove.

[paulsc]

Professional Lobbyists

Can I sound people out about something.

A few people have asked me whether it would be worth getting professional lobbyists involved to help us.

Someone even contacted the following agency, who have been involved in lobbying over another piece of retrospective tax legislation in FA 2009.

The Whitehouse Consultancy | Specialists in public and parliamentary affairs

The rub is it would cost about £20k to hire them for 6 months.

I honestly don't know if they could achieve anything but it's clear they know their way round the corridors of power far better than any of us.

As with all our previous political initiatives, Montpelier could not be involved in something like this but they would not necessarily disapprove.

Unless one is of the opinion that political pressure can be brought to bear on judges then I am not sure that this would gain us anything. Or is it being suggested that if the decisions go against us we lobby the government to change the law and recompense retrospectively all those who were caught out by this retrospective legislation?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Unless one is of the opinion that political pressure can be brought to bear on judges then I am not sure that this would gain us anything. Or is it being suggested that if the decisions go against us we lobby the government to change the law and recompense retrospectively all those who were caught out by this retrospective legislation?

Definitely nothing to do with influencing judges.

It appears Whitehouse have history with Gauke et al over the FA2009 retro. They may be able to do more effectively what we tried with our letters. I suppose there could also be the possibility of trying to get an amendment tabled in FA2011.

Obviously this would be a real longshot.

[seadog]

Lobbying government

Unless one is of the opinion that political pressure can be brought to bear on judges then I am not sure that this would gain us anything. Or is it being suggested that if the decisions go against us we lobby the government to change the law and recompense retrospectively all those who were caught out by this retrospective legislation?

I think the idea is that if we win we want to pursuade the Goverment to amend S58 to limit any retrospective clause to 12th March 2008 (ie the date when they announeced BN66)

If we lose, we need to begin a campaign to get it amended because right is on our side and Timms & Kennedy only got S58 through by misleading parliament. (As an example just rememebr they did not tell parliament about TN63 when they knew the scheme worked.) With the 2011 Finance budget already out for discussion now is the time to start lobbying for an amendment.