BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[Morlock]

You start to understand why people get to the point where they feel they need to dress up as Batman and climb up Buckingham Palace just to get somone to listen...

Now there's an idea.

"Tax Avoiders For Justice" ?

[smalldog]

"Tax Avoiders For Justice" ?

Morlock, your time machine Hector avatar is genius!!!

[kiwinlondon]

Did anyone read the metro today? There was an interview with Ozzy Osborne... had to laugh when they asked him if he voted... he said "of course not.... same s***t... different ar**holes"

[MajorGowen]

David Gauke aka Jellyfish...

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.

This is the SAME David Gauke who opposed the legislation and stated the following:

"It is not acceptable that the Government permit something that they consider unacceptable to exist for some years, and then seek to introduce retrospective legislation to address it."

Surely it is even more unacceptable that a Government who opposed the legislation do nothing about it when they now have the power to do so.

Bunch of Spineless Jellyfish.

MajorGowen

[MajorGowen]

Let the Jellyfish know what we think...

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...

[MajorGowen]

The more you read the worse it gets...

Just read through the Finance Bill debate further and David Gauke states the following:

...The comments from the professional bodies are universally critical. The Chartered Institute of Taxation described the retrospective nature as “extreme” and “unjustified”, the Law Society described it as “wrong in principle”, and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales said that
“it sends out a very damaging signal about the stability of the UK tax system”.
In the light of that—I stress that we are talking about the retrospective element and not the intention of the clause—we are deeply concerned about the proposals. Hence, we have tabled amendments, which are in line with the intention of the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall in amendment No. 132. Looking at that, we have stated that the provision should have effect only from 6 April 2008. On reflection, we have been unduly harsh on the Government and it would be reasonable to say 12 March 2008, which was the date of the Budget as opposed to the beginning of the financial year, but given that the proposal has a retrospective effect of 21 years, I am not sure that one month here or there will make much difference. If the Minister wants to reassure us and say that she will introduce proposals to change the retrospective nature of the measure to date it back to 12 March 2008, I would happily withdraw the amendment and accept that as a fair compromise. I am being extremely reasonable—

All we are asking is that he implements exactly what he proposed !!!!

This has all proved to me what I already knew - MP's are in this for one thing which is their own personal gain !!!

MajorGowen...

[DonkeyRhubarb]

This is the SAME David Gauke who opposed the legislation and stated the following:

"It is not acceptable that the Government permit something that they consider unacceptable to exist for some years, and then seek to introduce retrospective legislation to address it."

Surely it is even more unacceptable that a Government who opposed the legislation do nothing about it when they now have the power to do so.

Bunch of Spineless Jellyfish.

MajorGowen

To be fair on the Government, since they voted against the legislation we've had a High Court judgment giving it a glowing endorsement.

This makes it very difficult for them to do anything without it being perceived as rewarding tax avoiders, which in the current climate could be political

[Buzby]

Budget

done some search's on the budget:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum.../dg_188581.pdf

only thing of mild interest was :

1.69 The Government remains committed to a review of IR35 and small
business tax and will release further details shortly.

no surprises.

[MajorGowen]

Missed Opportunity...

To be fair on the Government, since they voted against the legislation we've had a High Court judgment giving it a glowing endorsement.

This makes it very difficult for them to do anything without it being perceived as rewarding tax avoiders, which in the current climate could be political

I'm not so sure it does make it difficult. Both Cons/Lib Dems and most financial institutes were against the retrospective element of the Bill. 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. A lot of the debating was around this point. By doing nothing Foreign Investors will continue to steer clear of the UK during a period when we need every penny we can get, thus damaging the potential income to the UK.

Missed opportunity in my opinion.

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...

[slogger]

done some search's on the budget:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum.../dg_188581.pdf

only thing of mild interest was :




no surprises.

- lots of mention of clamping down on tax evasion - applying general priciples which is a bit vague, also they've applied a change retrospectively to 2006 re asbestosis claims - obviously not opposed to retrospective changes in principle....