BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[Emigre]

Buzby, With no intention of shooting the messenger, this is absolute b0ll0cks.... typical 'it won't do anything for my career prospects' sidestep.

With respect, it depends what he thinks he was being asked to do. If he thinks he was being asked to Repeal S58 then you can forget it, whereas an amendment is a much softer angle, and far more manageable - it happens all the time.

Enjoy the weekend. Let's hope it's dry, there are no towels in EmigreLand.

[reckless]

MP Visit

Have just concluded a meeting with my (Labour) MP. She was genuinely surprised at our predicament and intends writing to HMRC, the Treasury Committee and George Osborne. I think mentioning Tony Blair (re his questioning of Norman Lamont at the time of the Padmore Legislation) and Frank Fields (re his analogy with retrospective changes to speed limits and fines arising) helped bring her round to the cause. She seemed amazed at the timescale involved (longer than the Second World War helps put this into perspective), interest being payable for the years before the law was actually changed, plus the fact there are 3000 individuals affected, with goodness knows what in the way of tragic human consequences.

All in all a worthwhile visit.

I would implore all those who have not yet done so, to visit their MP, even if they initially hold out little hope. The more of a nuiscance we make of ourselves, the greater will be the awareness in Parliament and beyond.

So chins up everyone and have a good weekend.

[Emigre]

Have just concluded a meeting with my (Labour) MP. She was genuinely surprised at our predicament and intends writing to HMRC, the Treasury Committee and George Osborne. I think mentioning Tony Blair (re his questioning of Norman Lamont at the time of the Padmore Legislation) and Frank Fields (re his analogy with retrospective changes to speed limits and fines arising) helped bring her round to the cause. She seemed amazed at the timescale involved (longer than the Second World War helps put this into perspective), interest being payable for the years before the law was actually changed, plus the fact there are 3000 individuals affected, with goodness knows what in the way of tragic human consequences.

All in all a worthwhile visit.

I would implore all those who have not yet done so, to visit their MP, even if they initially hold out little hope. The more of a nuiscance we make of ourselves, the greater will be the awareness in Parliament and beyond.

So chins up everyone and have a good weekend.

Thanks Buzby for the PM with details of your MP. Which MP is yours, Reckless? I suggest PMing it. Well done to you too for making the effort to go and talk. Rome wasn't built in a day. The more people who get to understand the detail of our situation first hand, the better position we are in to have them change it.

[Dieselpower]

Have just concluded a meeting with my (Labour) MP. She was genuinely surprised at our predicament and intends writing to HMRC, the Treasury Committee and George Osborne. I think mentioning Tony Blair (re his questioning of Norman Lamont at the time of the Padmore Legislation) and Frank Fields (re his analogy with retrospective changes to speed limits and fines arising) helped bring her round to the cause. She seemed amazed at the timescale involved (longer than the Second World War helps put this into perspective), interest being payable for the years before the law was actually changed, plus the fact there are 3000 individuals affected, with goodness knows what in the way of tragic human consequences.

All in all a worthwhile visit.

I would implore all those who have not yet done so, to visit their MP, even if they initially hold out little hope. The more of a nuiscance we make of ourselves, the greater will be the awareness in Parliament and beyond.

So chins up everyone and have a good weekend.

Well done reckless - you are so right to implore EVERYONE To go and see their MPs - just writing just isnt good enough. We need to see the whites of their eyes.

[SantaClaus]

Well done reckless - you are so right to implore EVERYONE To go and see their MPs - just writing just isnt good enough. We need to see the whites of their eyes.

Totally agree.

We also need to be a complete pain in the @rse. Our MPs and Gauke need to know we are not going away.

[portseven]

Buzby, With no intention of shooting the messenger, this is absolute b0ll0cks.... typical 'it won't do anything for my career prospects' sidestep.

Agree, the retro tax attack on the Ports (http://www.harroweastconservatives.c...r-lords-defeat) was brought in by Gordo's mob, and was waived by this current goverment.

[Fireship]

Thanks Buzby for the PM with details of your MP. Which MP is yours, Reckless? I suggest PMing it. Well done to you too for making the effort to go and talk. Rome wasn't built in a day. The more people who get to understand the detail of our situation first hand, the better position we are in to have them change it.

Perhaps we should maintain a list of MP’s that are sympathetic to our plight – offline of course!
We could distribute those names to each MP on the list and that way they know which of their colleagues they can talk to about it plus they will know they aren’t making a lone stand hence will be more likely to take a stand together….
Can’t hurt….

[warlord]

Just received my reply from David Gauke - sorry to spoil your weekends.

Letter from David Gauke (and signed by him)

Dear Nick Gibb (my MP),
Thank for your letter 28th Feb to George Osborne ref Mr x your constituent about section 58 (4) and (5) for finance act 2008. I am replying as the Minister responsible for this policy area.

I note that the High Court and CoA have found that, in the circumstances of this matter, the retrospective element of section 58 is proportionate and compatible with the ECHR. It is therefore not appropriate for the government to interface with that decision and I am unable to agree to your constituent’s request to repeal the legislation.

Your constituent has raised a concern that many scheme users may have insufficient funds to meet any tax liability once their final liabilities have been determined. Throughout, HMRC has made it clear that it considered that the scheme did not work and has regularly recommended that payments on account be made. However, if a scheme user is now having difficulties in meeting his tax liabilities, HMRC has established procedures to consider allowing Time to pay for those with short term difficulties meeting liabilities as they fall due…. found at website blah, blah,
Please pass on my thanks to Mr x for taking the trouble to make us aware of the these concerns
Signed
David Gauke

----WHAT A XXXXXXX

Sorry guys - I really did think he would try and help

[PlaneSailing]

Letter from David Gauke (and signed by him)

Dear Nick Gibb (my MP),
Thank for your letter 28th Feb to George Osborne ref Mr x your constituent about section 58 (4) and (5) for finance act 2008. I am replying as the Minister responsible for this policy area.

I note that the High Court and CoA have found that, in the circumstances of this matter, the retrospective element of section 58 is proportionate and compatible with the ECHR. It is therefore not appropriate for the government to interface with that decision and I am unable to agree to your constituent’s request to repeal the legislation.

Your constituent has raised a concern that many scheme users may have insufficient funds to meet any tax liability once their final liabilities have been determined. Throughout, HMRC has made it clear that it considered that the scheme did not work and has regularly recommended that payments on account be made. However, if a scheme user is now having difficulties in meeting his tax liabilities, HMRC has established procedures to consider allowing Time to pay for those with short term difficulties meeting liabilities as they fall due…. found at website blah, blah,
Please pass on my thanks to Mr x for taking the trouble to make us aware of the these concerns
Signed
David Gauke

----WHAT A XXXXXXX

Sorry guys - I really did think he would try and help

Received similar but not from Gauke himself, but from HMRC. Oddly, it said this :

" I am unable to agree to your constituent’s request to amend or repeal the legislation."

For some odd reason I thought the elected government made decisions about legislation, not the revenue.

However, If your email comes from Gauke, he has trouble coming. I HATE hypocrisy , and this it in spades.

[Buzby]

David Gauke sounding like Jane Kennedy

Letter from David Gauke (and signed by him)

Dear Nick Gibb (my MP),
Thank for your letter 28th Feb to George Osborne ref Mr x your constituent about section 58 (4) and (5) for finance act 2008. I am replying as the Minister responsible for this policy area.

I note that the High Court and CoA have found that, in the circumstances of this matter, the retrospective element of section 58 is proportionate and compatible with the ECHR. It is therefore not appropriate for the government to interface with that decision and I am unable to agree to your constituent’s request to repeal the legislation.

Your constituent has raised a concern that many scheme users may have insufficient funds to meet any tax liability once their final liabilities have been determined. Throughout, HMRC has made it clear that it considered that the scheme did not work and has regularly recommended that payments on account be made. However, if a scheme user is now having difficulties in meeting his tax liabilities, HMRC has established procedures to consider allowing Time to pay for those with short term difficulties meeting liabilities as they fall due…. found at website blah, blah,
Please pass on my thanks to Mr x for taking the trouble to make us aware of the these concerns
Signed
David Gauke

----WHAT A XXXXXXX

Sorry guys - I really did think he would try and help

I wish MPs would stop quoting this 'Throughout, HMRC has made it clear that it considered that the scheme did not work and has regularly recommended that payments on account be made'

did I receive a letter in 2001/02/03/04/05/06/07 saying DTA doesn't work and I should pay on account? no. if DG and JK believe HMRC why did HMRC not close the loop hole down in 2001/02/03/04/05/06/07!!!

warlord - if you haven't received warnings from hmrc about payment on account i would reply with a copy of your correspondence from HMRC and ask why we didn't receive 'notice' of possible retrospective legislation.