BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[nuffsaid]

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.

Could well be worth considering it if we win the latest round, at least then would could try to get the govt to intervene and prevent hector blowing even more money on an appeal.

[johnnyguitar]

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.

could you run a poll to find out how many people would be interested in funding such a venture? - to give us an idea of how much we would each need to chip in.
Then we could have a chat to these guys to get an idea from them as to what steps they could take and their view on how useful/successful it could be.
Even if we win the next round it might be a good idea to make sure the stake stays firmly embedded!

[swede]

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.

I'd be keen. One question though - did the aforementioned lobbying do any good?

[StellaFan]

Well 255 people have voted so far in the poll so if all (being optimistic) were interested in chipping in, it would mean just under £80 each. If we lose this decision surely it has to be worth a punt at that price

[moira under the stairs]

Well 255 people have voted so far in the poll so if all (being optimistic) were interested in chipping in, it would mean just under £80 each. If we lose this decision surely it has to be worth a punt at that price

I don't think you could use the 255 figure, I wouldn't be surprised if a few 'Hector Bods' have logged in and voted No in order not to make it look so bad, the N/A are probably just observers

I for one think anything is worth trying to get the correct justice in this matter, providing its not a lost cause or silly contribution ammounts from a few of us.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I'd be keen. One question though - did the aforementioned lobbying do any good?

If you mean, did it block the legislation, the answer is no it didn't.

But realistically it never stood much of a chance because the legislation was only backdated by 3 months (April to January 2009). Unlike BN66, the Human Rights Committee felt the degree of retrospection was justified in the circumstances.

See Page 8, Item 1.16, "Assessment of compatibility".

http://www.publications.parliament.u...ts/133/133.pdf

Interestingly, it was reported in the Financial Times in August that the scheme promoter "NT Advisors" was planning to take a case to the European Court of Human Rights.

If we can't win our case of 7-year retro I don't see how they've got a cat in hell's chance.

[helen7]

What record of success have they had in matters similar to ours? (lets assume loss at JR appeal).

- Finance bill passed
- JR lost
- JR appeal lost/or won

i.e. what can we realistically expect them to achieve.

I would be happy to chip in. The amount I would be willing to pay obviously depends on the above.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

What record of success have they had in matters similar to ours? (lets assume loss at JR appeal).

- Finance bill passed
- JR lost
- JR appeal lost/or won

i.e. what can we realistically expect them to achieve.

I would be happy to chip in. The amount I would be willing to pay obviously depends on the above.

There are case studies on their website, but I doubt they have ever encountered a set of circumstances comparable to ours.

Our case hasn't been described as unprecedented for nothing!!!

The Whitehouse Consultancy | Specialists in public and parliamentary affairs | CASE STUDIES

The fact is the Government have clearly stated their position in the following Parliamentary answer, so the chances of any lobbying changing this are very slim.

Double Taxation: 24 Jun 2010: Written answers and statements (TheyWorkForYou.com)

We would have to treat this as a "very little to lose" venture rather than going in with any great expectations.

[orientalist]

We would have to treat this as a "very little to lose" venture rather than going in with any great expectations.[/QUOTE]

Taken from the web site of the body (IPSA) that now manages MPs expenses
6 December 2010

IPSA response to comments regarding '3rd property loophole'

There is no loophole. IPSA does not, and cannot, place limits on the use of private property owned by MPs.

If an MP owns property, which is not registered with IPSA and for which he/she is not claiming any expenses, that is entirely the business of the MP concerned.

We cannot backdate the policy of recovering capital gains to before IPSA began operation. To do so would be unfair and inappropriate.

Lobby that! a published scheme, run by the government can not be back dated because to do so would be unfair and inappropriate, lets argue a consistent approach should at least be taken.....

[BolshieBastard]

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.

Sorry DR but this is a total waste of money imo. I've now had a reply from Gauke via my MP regarding why he was so vermently against BN66 retrospective legislation when in opposition but now wont do anything.

His reply is that while he is still against retrospective legislation, the case 'must now be allowed to run its course.' Sorry but what a kunt. Says one thing in opposition and does something the opoosite when given the opportunity to do something.

He could pull this quite easily but he hasnt got the guts. He talked the talk but now grovels on his belly like some court jester of old.