BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

In a perverse way, this helps as an example of how one might EXPECT retrospection to happen. Not as in our case, were not mentioning retrospection meant that we should have expected it.

This is one of the drivers behind the JCHR now needing oversight of all retro proposals in advance and as a result of DR bringing the impact to us to their attention. What Osborne said today is the way one would expect this to be announced - playing by the Rees-Rules. To say that Padmore in 1987 was a warning of retrospection in the future is like suggesting that the Titanic in 1912 was a warning that icebergs will cause ships to sink in 2012. No icebergs off Italy. Different ship, different situation and yet not the same result. One did not sink.

Anyways, I see it as the Tories getting back to the Rees-Rules. And that was missing in 2008.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Rees-Rules

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/budget-update...other-6655.pdf

Consider page 7 when taking our plight up with an MP or TSC. Read this page carefully and the first bullet. Now think about what I posted about the comment made by Osborne today when referring to retrospection. All good and as expected.

Now compare that with the claim in 2008 for BN66 retro and the rationale being that 1987 was a clear Ministerial warning. Hmm, checked Hansard again from 1987 - nope. Nothing there that applies to us. No retro tax being levied to anyone. Restricted class of person was precisley defined as the link states and it was not us. Technical Note? Yep, but it came in 2002 via Technical Note 63 and it doesn't apply to us.

Back to square one.

[TalkingCheese]

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/budget-update...other-6655.pdf

Consider page 7 when taking our plight up with an MP or TSC. Read this page carefully and the first bullet. Now think about what I posted about the comment made by Osborne today when referring to retrospection. All good and as expected.

Now compare that with the claim in 2008 for BN66 retro and the rationale being that 1987 was a clear Ministerial warning. Hmm, checked Hansard again from 1987 - nope. Nothing there that applies to us. No retro tax being levied to anyone. Restricted class of person was precisley defined as the link states and it was not us. Technical Note? Yep, but it came in 2002 via Technical Note 63 and it doesn't apply to us.

Back to square one.

"the clauses giving effect to the announcement are included in the next available finance bill"

So on top of the rest of it, was the next available finance bill after 1987 2008? Norman lamont knew the loophole was still there but govt only "clarified" it 21 years later! It seems simple to me... If Hmrc thought padmore was our undoing they would have mentioned it in 2001/2. Certainly shouldn't take 7/8 years to come to that conclusion.

[bombaycat]

Morning everyone ...(in richie benaud voice)

Trust everyone has written to their mp and the treasury committee by now ?

Come on lurkers ...say Hi and confirm you have done it ... !

Yep, both MP's, no answers as yet - so both chased and asked for surgery meeting.

[portseven]

It's amazing what a few headlines can do .... Notice there is a item in the buget about use of PSCs and people in hihgh office of a company as a result of the headlines about the student loans director and the others

So the take from this is that if you want something done quickly then a few embarrassing news stoiries is the way to do it

So how can we do that???

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Poll - lobbying campaign funding

Please can I have your votes.

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...n-funding.html

[OldITGit]

Treasdury Committee Response

Thank you for writing to the Treasury Committee. As you may have seen, Andrew Tyrie MP, Chairman of the Treasury Committee, made the following comments regarding retrospective taxation:
“Can retrospection be reconciled with the certainty a tax system needs in order to deliver an efficient economy? A simpler, more stable and fairer tax system is less likely to excite demands for retrospection.
"Any action the Government takes on this is likely to be something the Committee would want to look at as part of our study into the Budget.”
The Chairman’s comments were prompted by the actions HMRC took with regard to Barclays. This follows on from work the Committee previously undertook on the principles of tax policy.

I am sorry to hear about the distress caused to you by the changes introduced by Section 58 of the Finance Act 2008. I will ensure your concerns are drawn to the attention of the Members of the Committee. The Committee has not announced a specific inquiry into retrospective taxation but may look at this subject as part of its forthcoming work on the 2012 Budget. Your email and attached timeline will be useful background material to any work the Committee undertakes in this area.

Thank you for taking the trouble to write to the Committee.

Yours sincerely

Phil Jones
Committee Assistant
Treasury Committee

It appears that tho most of the response is standard, the timeline is being mentioned, which would indicate that each email is being given attention

[nolongerlurker]

Unhelpful MP response

Just received a response from my local MP -

Dear Mr xxxxx,

Thank you for your letter of 6th inst. I apologise for the delay in replying.

I understand your concerns over the matter and have taken them up with David Gauke but, given the government's current attitude and the fact the case had gone all the way to the ECHR I would not hold out a great deal of hope that they will change tack.

Clearly the current Chancellor is determined to use the excuse of cutting down on "tax loopholes" to justify a reduction in the 50p rate of tax.

I will let you know what response I receive, however.

Yours sincerely,

X


Mmmmmmmmmmm............

[Toocan]

Just received a response from my local MP -

Dear Mr xxxxx,

Thank you for your letter of 6th inst. I apologise for the delay in replying.

I understand your concerns over the matter and have taken them up with David Gauke but, given the government's current attitude and the fact the case had gone all the way to the ECHR I would not hold out a great deal of hope that they will change tack.

Clearly the current Chancellor is determined to use the excuse of cutting down on "tax loopholes" to justify a reduction in the 50p rate of tax.

I will let you know what response I receive, however.

Yours sincerely,

X


Mmmmmmmmmmm............

It has not went to the ECHR - which MP was it?

[reckless]

Treasury Commitee Response

Received the Treasury Commitee reply to my hand written letter today - same as the other examples quoted:

.....Andrew Tyrie made the following comments regarding retrospective taxation..........comments were prompted by the actions HMRC took with regards Barclays.......I am sorry to hear about the distress.......the Commitee may look at this......your letter will be useful background material


At least we have been noticed now, and by a wider group of Parliamentarians.

I agree with DR that now is the time to keep up the pressure with a PR campaign and/or lobbyist