BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[futurecat]

It doesn't mean nothing is happening or they are about to throw in the towel.

There is a lot going on behind the scenes. All the parties involved are now in talks.

Please continue to be patient.

Good things...

I have just done a small moonwalk across my living room floor. Lets hope this is not like a set of talks at the UN i.e. hot air

[Dieselpower]

I have just done a small moonwalk across my living room floor. Lets hope this is not like a set of talks at the UN i.e. hot air

No, its definitely not "hot air". But have you please contacted your MP and arranged to see him or her? Its really critical.
cheers

[Wembley53]

I'm on the case with Ben Wallace (Con). Waiting for his reply!

[seadog]

Some more retrospection coming here...

BBC News - Budget: Osborne pledges 'aggressive' measures on stamp duty avoidance



Although they might not have to retrospectively change the law - I guess they could just introduce a new tax which hits the current legal owner of such properties.

HMRC have know about these abusive schemes for years and done nothing about it.

It will be interesting to see if they introduce "retrospective legislation" in the budget.

If they don't it will add to the growing argument that S58(4) was an agressive abuse of HMRC power in misleading parliament.

[Toocan]

HMRC have know about these abusive schemes for years and done nothing about it.

It will be interesting to see if they introduce "retrospective legislation" in the budget.

If they don't it will add to the growing argument that S58(4) was an agressive abuse of HMRC power in misleading parliament.

The suggestion appears to be that there will be a tax charge where a house that is used as a home is held within a company. Therefore, no retrospection, but a large annual tax charge until such time it is sold out of the company.

[travellingknob]

The suggestion appears to be that there will be a tax charge where a house that is used as a home is held within a company. Therefore, no retrospection, but a large annual tax charge until such time it is sold out of the company.

so another sledgehammer with unforseen consequences then. What about all the genuine uses of companies holding property, landlords for instance. Then a landlord wont be able to take up residence in a property they own without landing themself another tax bill.
My point that whilst avoidance exists so do genuine uses of the said vehicle !

[Emigre]

Sir Paul Beresford - Mole Valley

Does anyone live in Mole Valley constituency? If so, does anyone fancy a trip along to his surgery?

I have written to him several times in the past...he should know who I am!

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Followed up a letter to my local MP [Ian Murray Lab] with a visit to his surgery this morning: we were left alone for best part of an hour and he listened intently to our case - backed up with some recent info gleaned from this very Forum explaining the misleading detail perpetrated by HMRC re. Padmore. During the discussions he mentioned that he had received correspondence from six other consituents on the same subject of BN66 (but I was the first to make a personal visit). I would urge the other six - if they are aware of this forum - to pay a visit: the more pressure can be brought to bear the better. For the record, he agreed that "retrospective taxation" is not acceptable and promised to bring this up with the Chancellor (!) and Danny Alexander next week. He seemed genuinely surprised as to the numbers of people affected by this and the amounts of money involved leading to potential bankruptcies.

There is a BIG difference between writing to your MP and actually seeing them - trust me. Keep it simple and stay to the facts. The links DR posted should get you some traction. However, don't go rambing off about tax avoidance per se. Just address the key points that are their in Black and White from Hansard and the FoI request that has the HMRC fax with it. Just tell it the way it is. Oh and by was of reference, the JK email content can be easily decoded. She said she questioned officials closely? Well she also said in Parliament "I hope I get this right...." when referring to whether HMRC had always maintained the scheme did not work. And in her email she seems suprised at the number of people affected. That does not sound like close questioning to me. But in her defence, when the JCHR questioned Timms as to why no impact assessment had been done, he brushed them off saying none was needed! Yeah right. A nice little tale to tell you MP on the way out...

[lucozade]

Followed up a letter to my local MP [Ian Murray Lab] with a visit to his surgery this morning: we were left alone for best part of an hour and he listened intently to our case - backed up with some recent info gleaned from this very Forum explaining the misleading detail perpetrated by HMRC re. Padmore. During the discussions he mentioned that he had received correspondence from six other consituents on the same subject of BN66 (but I was the first to make a personal visit). I would urge the other six - if they are aware of this forum - to pay a visit: the more pressure can be brought to bear the better. For the record, he agreed that "retrospective taxation" is not acceptable and promised to bring this up with the Chancellor (!) and Danny Alexander next week. He seemed genuinely surprised as to the numbers of people affected by this and the amounts of money involved leading to potential bankruptcies.

Well done that man.

What resources did you take with you? I'm going to arrange a visit to my local MP ASAP.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Well done that man.

What resources did you take with you? I'm going to arrange a visit to my local MP ASAP.

Anyone got Stephen Timms as their MP? Not sure you'd want to go see him over this given he was one of the supporters of it! But if you do go see him, I'd like to come along. I don't need documents as I can sadly quote Hansard chaper and verse from memory!