BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[SantaClaus]

Letter writing - a suggestion

When writing to MPs, include a picture of your family and kids.

Make it personal and make them aware of how HMRC will ruin the lives of real people and their children.

[Dieselpower]

Continued from Part 1

On 24 June 2010 you responded to a Parliamentary question by Zac Goldsmith (Con – Richmond). Extract from Hansard.
Zac Goldsmith: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what his policy is on continuing the provisions of Section 58 of the Finance Act 2008 in respect of UK residents and foreign partnerships; and if he will make a statement; [3745]
(2) whether he plans to introduce proposals to repeal legislative provisions that ensure UK residents retrospectively pay UK tax on their profits from foreign partnerships; and if he will make a statement. [3810]
Mr Gauke: UK residents are taxable on their worldwide income wherever it arises—including situations where it arises by way of foreign partnerships. Section 58 of Finance Act 2008 was enacted to help put that beyond doubt. The Government are, in general, opposed to retrospective legislation. However, the retrospective element of section 58 is currently the subject of judicial review by the courts and the Government's view is that it is best dealt with there
Further, I am aware of a written response made to a number of MPs on behalf of their constituents made also during June 2010 where the same words have been used. Previous responses from MPs had indicated that the nation’s economic position is also a consideration.

No one affected by S58 FA2008 disagrees with your comment that resolution is best dealt with through the Courts. However, the very belief that recourse is best addressed through the Administrative Court (by way of Judicial Review) is in itself a continuance of what we believe to be a suppression of our Human Rights. All we want is a fair hearing in the RIGHT court, the Tax court. Repeal of the retrospective clauses in S58 FA 2008 would allow proper process to be restored. I believe that you are a lawyer and, as such, would I hope fully understand this differentiation.

The views that you espoused in Opposition are principles. Principles, and the maintenance of them, are the means by which the integrity of individual MPs and Governments are valued. There is no place in a civilised society for principles of this nature to be so compromised and the state of the nation’s finances to be quoted as the reason for so doing. I would argue that repeal of the relevant passages of the legislation would be fiscal neutral in the short term and fiscal positive in the longer term on the basis of sending a clear message of certainty to would-be inward investors to the UK.

I draw your attention to the fact that more comments have been received for this cause on the Civil Liberties part of Nick Clegg’s Your Freedom site than any other.

HM Government

I encourage you to read them. The majority of comments are from ordinary people, many of whom will be forced into bankruptcy and state dependency by the continuing existence of the retrospective elements of S58 FA 2008.

These events span a little over 2 years. Please explain to me why the views and principles that you expressed so eloquently and forcefully in 2008 no longer apply. Please also explain what effort has been expended to determine the estimated financial impact on the Exchequer from retention of the retrospective clauses of S58 FA 2008.

Thank you for your time.

Yours sincerely




Emigre


Copies to:
Emigre's MP
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA

Zac Goldsmith MP
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA

How about this - take out a full page advert in the local paper that covers Gauke's area, and publish your letter openly. Perhaps with a caption saying "2 faced MP?" or something similarly humiliating- not libellous because if he isnt standing by his previous remarks anymore - without adequate justification - then he is a hypocrite. Or perhaps demand a proper written justification for his apparent volte face, and if one is not forthcoming, stick it in the paper. That will stir the hornets nest and may force him to take stand, like a man. In fact why not let us know the cost of such an advert anyway. I would contrubute.

[SantaClaus]

How about this - take out a full page advert in the local paper that covers Gauke's area, and publish your letter openly. Perhaps with a caption saying "2 faced MP?" or something similarly humiliating- not libellous because if he isnt standing by his previous remarks anymore - without adequate justification - then he is a hypocrite. Or perhaps demand a proper written justification for his apparent volte face, and if one is not forthcoming, stick it in the paper. That will stir the hornets nest and may force him to take stand, like a man. In fact why not let us know the cost of such an advert anyway. I would contrubute.

That's not a bad idea actually. There's nothing like a bit of embarrassment to get things rolling.

These local papers have a very high readership amongst pensioners who are also the most likely people to vote

[Disgusted of Coventry]

Reply from Gauke in 2010 - "Its in the hands of the Courts"

What happened to this guy between 2008 and 2010? It's like something out of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers".

[portseven]

What happened to this guy between 2008 and 2010? It's like something out of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers".

Think its called a General Election...

[slogger]

Think its called a General Election...

worth us targeting conservative constituencies in which the MP only has a marginal majority ... would make the conservative party overall more likely to listen to us - especially if they're made aware this is what is being done?

[Morlock]

How about this - take out a full page advert in the local paper that covers Gauke's area, and publish your letter openly. Perhaps with a caption saying "2 faced MP?" or something similarly humiliating- not libellous because if he isnt standing by his previous remarks anymore - without adequate justification - then he is a hypocrite. Or perhaps demand a proper written justification for his apparent volte face, and if one is not forthcoming, stick it in the paper. That will stir the hornets nest and may force him to take stand, like a man. In fact why not let us know the cost of such an advert anyway. I would contrubute.

Be careful. Even if something is true it can still be classed as libellous if it could damage someone's reputation...

[BrilloPad]

Be careful. Even if something is true it can still be classed as libellous if it could damage someone's reputation...

And suppose someone goes to the local paper with cash?

And I think there are a couple of hundred on here who will be bankrupt so are unlikely to care about a libel case.

[TalkingCheese]

All quiet on the postal front...

Do you think MP and HMRC are waiting for the budget for some reason ? (or maybe that is wishful thinking!)

[BrilloPad]

Do you think MP and HMRC are waiting for the budget for some reason ? (or maybe that is wishful thinking!)

IMO MP are waiting for HMRC next move. Which is the lower tax tribunal? Will they pick a few sample cases or do they have to take all of us?