BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[smalldog]

This is pretty much the "standard template", except for the bit above.

yep i read it as verbatim to what i received apart from the last para. Obviously someone up high has given the MP's a template

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Any responses from LibDems?

Most Tory MPs seem to be replying with the "standard template".

I haven't seen any LibDems replying with this. Come to think of it, I haven't seen many responses from them fullstop.

If your MP sends you the "standard template" letter, please reply with the letter below.

Thanks!
DR

[TheBarCapBoyz]

Reply

If your MP sends you the "standard template" letter, please reply with the letter below.

Thanks!
DR

In other words, our template's better than your template.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

In other words, our template's better than your template.

Templates at dawn!

[RingStinger]

John Redwood, Wokingham and about as Tory as they come, has replied saying he's written to the Treasury and will respond when he's heard back.

[SLB]

Most Tory MPs seem to be replying with the "standard template".

I haven't seen any LibDems replying with this. Come to think of it, I haven't seen many responses from them fullstop.

If your MP sends you the "standard template" letter, please reply with the letter below.

Thanks!
DR

I've sent the original and chaser letter to Ed Davey (Lib Dem) and not had any responses to say that he has even received them. When I wrote to him before the election he was prompt with his replies and was keen to take up our cause.

It seems that spouting platitudes in oppostion is easy, acting on the courage on your convictions when you have the power and opportunity to do so is a little harder!

[Cantthinkof1]

Very well written ...

They've already seen what can happen when someone is driven to breaking point - Derrick Bird. This guy appears to have evaded tax; consequently his fury wasn't directed at HMRC but those close to him who wouldn't bail him out. After this he completely lost the plot and lashed out at anyone who got in his way, before turning the gun on himself.

Our situation is completely different to that of Bird. We didn't break the law as it was at the time. HMRC may have disagreed but then they should have tested this in court. However, by their hand, they have put us in virtually the same predicament as Bird.

According to HMRC, around 2500 individuals used this scheme. That is an awful lot of angry/desperate people. Is it beyond the realms of possibility that one of these people could flip like Bird?

If the brown stuff does hit the fan, the Government will want all fingers pointing at HMRC. After all, they voted against it in opposition so why should they carry the can.

However, we shouldn't let them off the hook. They may not be to blame for s.58 but, since it is within their power to do something about it, responsibility now rests with them.

"No comment" is therefore not an acceptable response.

DR,

An excellent posting!

[TAF4]

Response to 2nd Letter

I've been away for a few days and got home to a response from Steve Brine (Con.). He advises that my first letter wasn't received (I sent a copy of it with the 2nd).
He also advises that he has taken up the points raised with the 'Financial Secretary to the Treasury', and promises to write again when a reply is received.

At least it wasn't their standard template.

[TheBarCapBoyz]

Letter from David Gauke, Secretary to the Exchequer

One of the Boyz' MP, Nicholas Soames, passed this on... not sure if it's a template people have seen before, but it's pretty depressing either way.

----------------------------------------------------------

Dear Nicholas

Thank you for your letter of 7 June on behalf of your constituents, asking for section (4) and (5) of the Finance Act 2008 to be repealed.

While I can understand your constituent's concerns and the difficulties they and others currently face, we are not in a position to agree to their request. We are, in general, opposed to retrospective legislation and, when in Opposition, voted against the introduction of the provisions to which your constituent objects. The legilsation in question is currently the subject of judicial review by the courts, and we believe that case should run its course.

I have spoken to HMRC about the potential financial difficulties that users of the scheme may face. Officials there have confirmed they have established procedures for dealing with cases of genuine hardship. Where any scheme user fears they may now have difficulties in meeting their tax liabilities, they can find details of these procedures on the HMRC website at HM Revenue & Customs: Payment problems, or they can call HMRC's Business
Payment Support Service on 0845 302 1435.

Please pass on my thanks blah blah blah


-------------

what a load of crap.

It's quite clear what this guy's views are.... check out his website...

http://www.davidgauke.com/content/tax-avoidance-debate

[Morlock]

Huh??

It's quite clear what this guy's views are.... check out his website...

Tax Avoidance Debate | David Gauke MP - Member of Parliament for South West Hertfordshire

Tax avoidance is generally regarded as the use of legal structures and allowances to reduce tax bills in manners not intended by Parliament when enacting the legislation.

So it's not enough to know what Parliament enacted into law - it seems that citizens are supposed to second-guess what Parliament intended !!

And another thing: if tax avoidance uses

legal structures

, why are we being penalised ??