BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[OnYourBikeGB]

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

No great surprise, truth is he's a hypocritical, self-serving, two-faced b*stard. What a His comments show he doesn't care, and isn't bothered about finding out the facts either if he doesn't already know them. On the other hand, we knew that it won't be repealed, but then again fighting for an amendment is a different matter.

The fight's not over.

[warlord]

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.

To my knowledge none of us received any payment notices until 22nd Dec 2008....such a lovely 2nd class Xmas present.
All I EVER received from HRMC before 2008, was your SA return is under investigation (no reason given from memory).
Yes I will reply to our new friend Mr Gauke and AGAIN point out a few facts.....with photocopies.

[OnYourBikeGB]

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.

From HMRC? Wtf? The wording is very much HMRC speak, so I guess we know who handles his correspondence for him.

[nevergiveup]

No great surprise, truth is he's a hypocritical, self-serving, two-faced b*stard. What a His comments show he doesn't care, and isn't bothered about finding out the facts either if he doesn't already know them. On the other hand, we knew that it won't be repealed, but then again fighting for an amendment is a different matter.

The fight's not over.

Did anyone here seriously think we were going get a "were sorry and this will be repealed right away" response?

Hasn't spoiled my weekend. Yes it would of been nice, but they are all a bunch of two faced b@stards....

Like DR said good things are happening at Monp so will look forward to their upcoming news letter.

Still lots of fight left in me

[PlaneSailing]

No great surprise, truth is he's a hypocritical, self-serving, two-faced b*stard. What a His comments show he doesn't care, and isn't bothered about finding out the facts either if he doesn't already know them. On the other hand, we knew that it won't be repealed, but then again fighting for an amendment is a different matter.

The fight's not over.

We'll see. The email I received said clearly that it was the revenue who decide on legislation.

He needs to man up. As I said earlier, hypocrites deserve very thing they get . I will happily spend the weekend digging.

[TalkingCheese]

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

I had the same letter today from George Osborne via my mp! Some copying and pasting me thinks.

[PlaneSailing]

From HMRC? Wtf? The wording is very much HMRC speak, so I guess we know who handles his correspondence for him.

Yep. it seems that that HMRC WRITE LEGISLATION. I have it in black and white. No point in voting everyone, the civil service run the country. And can, therefore hide their mistakes for 7/8 years at a time.

I have been very calm about this up until now, but now the gloves at off.

[bananarepublic]

To my knowledge none of us received any payment notices until 22nd Dec 2008....such a lovely 2nd class Xmas present.
All I EVER received from HRMC before 2008, was your SA return is under investigation (no reason given from memory).
Yes I will reply to our new friend Mr Gauke and AGAIN point out a few facts.....with photocopies.

To me this all highlights the total folly of not picking someone whose tax returns were opened up under discovery as the basis of the HR case. There was a risk that HMRC would just turn around and revoke the discovery, of course, but the debate now is pitched in terms of being warned, blah blah blah. Montpelier should have picked the worst hardluck case (i.e. tax returns accepted for 7 years and then bam - discovery and massive retrospective interest bill) and gone with that as it would have spiked most of the judiciary's guns and it would have framed the debate differently.

The truth is that we were never going to get anything out of the government, so I guess we need to wait and find out what Montpelier propose next.

[BolshieBastard]

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

When you consider what this twat gauke said pre election about BN66, you really have to wonder just who is pulling his strings now he sits, cosily, in Government. It is without doubt, a complete about face. In fact, it is as if two different people with the name gauke exists.

Perhaps its me but I have standards (ok some may say they are low but, I got them all the same!). I just could not do such a complete about face. If such a situation arose in my work, I'd have to resign when faced with such a proposition. I just could be so two faced.

But, as I said before, the war in getting BN66 overturned is lost. We need to concentrate on getting the interest removed. We need MP's on side to get a debate in the House.

[Toocan]

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 think he needs a reason to help.

The JR ONLY found that the government had the right to make law retrospectively. However, Parliament were misled. The evidence presented to them was incomplete and misleading. It is for Parliament to correct that - not the courts.

HMRC did not make it clear that the scheme did not work because the scheme plainly did work until section 58 was passed into law in 2008. If it had not worked before that then HMRC would have told us why and issued a closure notice. They didn't. Instead they asked us to await a commissionaires hearing - asking if we would be bound by its decision.

So here we are, we are somehow expected to believe that they regularly told us to pay (how much? that changed too!) and yet somehow ignore the letter that entraped us by asking us to be bound by a commissionaires hearing?

How about writing back and pointing out that you do not want repeal, but rather ammendment so that the legislation respects the principle of legitimate expectation. And also, why not throw in that you do not think it is appropiate that HMRC are writing replies for ministers of the Crown!