BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[portseven]

We are even getting very positive and supportive responses from Labour MPs.
.

As positive as this is it sort of makes me sad, it seems the only way to get things moving is appealing to the opposition who are looking point scoring causes, or by some adverse press, see the recent changes to PSC use due to the recent revelations in press about public sector people being paid via Ltd co.

Fathers for justice had the right idea

[Toocan]

As positive as this is it sort of makes me sad, it seems the only way to get things moving is appealing to the opposition who are looking point scoring causes, or by some adverse press, see the recent changes to PSC use due to the recent revelations in press about public sector people being paid via Ltd co.

Any port in a storm eh?

Actually MPs of ALL colours appear to be supporting us. There is a clear injustice in what HMRC have done and it is easy to see. I would guess that that, and where MPs have several people visiting them and telling of the effect the s.58 will have, they are seeing that we don't deserve this.

But it's only going to make a difference if enough people get involved. There are aparently 3,000 who have used the scheme and every one us has to help. The best way is to make an appointment to meet your MP face to face. Failing that, every single person should be writing to their MP.

It all adds up - and it's the only way to make a difference.

[Dieselpower]

Emails from David Gauke and Justine Greening 2008

Everyone needs to see these two emails. The exact date and recipient's name have been redacted for obvious reasons. Gauke's comments match Hansard, and Justine is now in the Cabinet - so if any of you guys has her as an MP, it would be appropriate to raise the email below with her accordingly. I understand there's a lot of information out there which is supportive of our cause. As DR keeps on saying, patience is required.

Enjoy.....



From: GAUKE, David [GAUKED@parliament.uk]
Sent: September 2008
To:
Cc: GREENING, Justine
Subject: RE: Clause 55 / Budget Note 66

Dear Mr
Many thanks for raising this issue.
As you will have seen from the Official Report of the debate on clause 55, we strongly opposed the retrospective nature of Clause 55 and sought to amend it accordingly.
Retrospective legislation creates uncertainty and damages business confidence, as Justine pointed out. It also denies taxpayers the opportunity to adjust their behaviour in a legitimate way to avoid an additional tax burden.
In general terms, we rely on Parliament to safeguard our liberties and, if MPs fail to do so, on the electorate to change the MPs. However, it may be possible that this provision may prove to be vulnerable to legal challenge (possibly on the grounds that the legislations denies taxpayers their reasonable expectations) but I am not in a position to advise on whether such a course of action would be successful.
I have no reason to believe that Jane Kennedy was lying in the course of this debate although I do believe that she failed to understand the significance of the retrospective nature of the provisions and the strength of opposition to it.
Given that this provision has now been enacted, we would need to look at the practicalities of repealing it once in power. We would, however, be much more mindful of the fact that legislation of this kind further undermines the attractiveness of the UK as a place to do business.
Regards
David Gauke MP
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: GREENING, Justine
Sent: September 2008
To:
Cc: GAUKE, David
Subject: RE: Clause 55 / Budget Note 66

Dear Mr ,
Thanks for your email. This clause was covered on the Finance Bill Committee by our Shadow Treasury Minister David Gauke MP and I am copying him into my reply so that he perhaps can address your concerns in more detail.
David Gauke MP did raise some serious concerns about the retrospective aspect of this legislation on the Finance Bill Committe itself, hence the vote that we forced. As you point out, to retrospectively tax in this way (and the government did it similarly with Vehicle Excise Duty, which was a clause I covered), damages trust and also damages the reputation of the UK as a good place to live and do business. We have to have confidence in our tax system if it is to function effectively.
I'm sure David Gauke can hopefully add to my comments and in particular regarding future plans.
Meantime, I can assure you will we continue to hold Treasury Ministers to account on this matter and their other examples of shambolic performance over the coming months.
Best wishes,
Justine Greening MP

[portseven]

Given that this provision has now been enacted, we would need to look at the practicalities of repealing it once in power.

Over to you Dave....

[Ganimos]

I am probably going to be stoned for this………

I make a plea for people on here to be professional and stop using some of the language they have done in
relation to Tax collectors Tax inspectors etc, some of whom have actually been named.

It is unbecoming and very unprofessional to swear at, and ridicule, individual people who are doing their job. Using profanities and discourtesy shows a lack of a vocabulary, a lack of knowledge. It does nothing for our argument, and it certainly does nothing for our reputation. Tax officers are professional and don’t use profanities in their letters to you.
Intelligence comes in there somewhere.

Tax collectors are just doing a job like you or I.
The Country needs schools, hospitals, roads etc etc
The Country needs the income.
We need tax collectors.
They are just doing a job the Country asked them to do.
Simple.


Our case.

The Tax Collectors are going to collect the Tax the Country has asked them to collect.
In a democracy the rule of the people prevails.
We put our case forward (Tax returns) the Revenue didn’t agree with it. Two referees were called (the Courts) they ruled our case was offside. That’s how a democracy works. Parliament has ruled.
We challenged, we lost.

Simple as that.

However what has gone wrong, is, according to people on here, the wrong story (maybe deliberately) was put forward to our democratically elected representatives…… Parliament

People on here are beginning to tell their story Bankruptcies / marriage breakdowns etc etc
Their stories have to be true. Why would people go on line and say I will be bankrupt with all the shame with neighbours and friend’s bankruptcy brings? Marriage breakdowns come into that category.

Its going to happen.

In my humble opinion what is needed is a cold precise objective picture of the TRUTH be presented so everybody in the Country 70,000,000 people can see it and their representatives (their MPs) make a judgement with all the facts in their hands. Yes we have to live with the charge of tax dodging. (Legal tax dodging)

That bigger picture includes.

Alleged misinformation to MPs
Alleged incorrect considered by the Courts
Bankruptcies, marriage breakdowns, houses being lost, stress, health being ruined, kids futures severely damaged, lives being ruined, dreams being broken (3,000 users of the schemes 2.4 kids per family maybe 7200 kids) add the scheme users spouses 3000……. 13,200 people. Then add them to the grandparents who are affected say 1500, and don’t forget the schemes were not all to do with I T Contractors. Say add another 1500 grandparents 14,700+ people

And……….On ALL sides.
Claims /counter claims
Disputed claims
Stretching the truth.

How many of the Tax collectors when they send out the closure notices would do their jobs if they knew their actions would put 7200 kids in jeopardy no food, going hungry, no clothes (never mind play stations or game boys) blighted futures? You can’t own a game boy if your bankrupt!

They don’t know how many kids are affected, we don’t know how many kids are affected , the MPs certainly don’t know how many kids will be affected.

With the stroke of a pen potentially 7000+ children have been put n the BN66 risk register.
Do we inform Social Services? Do we inform the Children’s Commissioner? Do we inform the Police? Where are the Child Protection Officers?

There has been not been a single impact assessment commisioned in relation to BN66.

Some kind of catastrophe will happen to these families and 7200 children will suffer (some slightly, others a future and a life ruined)

The current aggressive clampdown on Tax Dodgers is laudable. Most people in the Country would agree with it. The clampdown largely affects Pop Stars, Big International Companies, wealthy individuals
Few if any CHILDREN AFFECTED by this changed approach.

Most of the people who use this Forum are ‘little boys’ not Universal Conglomerates
I am not suggesting relief for ANYBODY us them or other or a license to tax dodge.

There are 7200 children caught up in these reforms.

NOBODY HAS THOUGHT IT THROUGH.

The Governments ‘blunt scimitar’ to aggressively regulate ‘tax schemes’ doesn’t discriminate.
7200 babies and children are going to be slain by the’ none thought out’ consequences of BN66

Lets have a reform of all the ‘tax arrangements’ Lets not have genocide.
The scimitar needs sharpening and a computer chip installing in it. It also needs a sharp eyed axe man with sharp focus that will not massacre the innocent (children) and bring about the
‘Silence of the Lambs’

Who is to blame for all this?
HMRC ?
Scheme users ?
Clever Tax Barristers (on BOTH sides) ?
Montpelier ?
OtherScheme providers ?
MPs ?
You ?
Me ?

Certainly not the kids that will be effected!!

Everyone will say “not I ”

Put your hand up if you are to blame.

Do I see one ?

HMRC ? For taking so long for this to fester. Years and years years.
Sceme users ? For trying to ‘make a trick’ over all the over tax payers in the Country.
Clever tax barristers? Both sides. Well…… for just doing what they usually do…..Making mega bucks.
Montpelier? Making money
Other scheme providers? As above
MPs ? Not being diligent.
You ? ???
Me ? ???

I only see one hand.
I once was blind but now I see……….
Never has so much been owed to the vulnerable by so many.

What will we call the charity we will have to set up to look after the orphans; yes suicide is not unknown in bankruptcies.

www. notI.com ?

If we put together this WHOLE TRUTH and take it to our democratically elected members we can do no more.
Write to you M P

We also need to pray to the Almighty to give the gift of, delayed, informed, companionate vision and wisdom to our MPs
If the decision after that is we are still ‘offside’ Well……. that’s the Country we live in to-day.

A Country that makes thousands of children suffer because of the alleged sins of others (on ALL sides)

A Country that is dammed!!

(Write to your MP to-day!! He/She may not know the problem)

P.s

We have a lot to learn from history

Why did Caesar Augustus make a ruling every body must go to their own town so he knew how much taxes he could collect. Jesus was born in a stable as a result of that ruling
King Herod brought about the massacre of the Innocents and wanted the baby Jesus killed and out of the way so he wouldn’t be a threat to him.
The three wise men …………........

BN66 is the modern day equivalent of the Herod atrocities…….. the massacre of the innocents
.
In the BN66 story who is Augustus Caesar? Who is King Herod ? Who are the Three wise men that saved the day?
Where are those MPs, the only ones that can save the day? We need somebody to defend the children.

Where are the three (or three hundred) wise men or women to defend the children caught up by this nightmare of BN66 some of whom are yet to be born?

p p s
The next Treasury Select Committee meeting is coming soon. We should offer our services to appear before the Committee to give them a shot of ‘The Whole of The Moon’ It’s highly unusual for that to happen but…. what the hell.

The many MPs seeing the ‘whole of the moon’ including the damage to 7000+ children would want to find out just what the hell has gone on?

I beg you for he sake of all the vulnerable children.

(Write to your MP to-day!! He/She maybe don’t know the problem)

[cojak]

Thank you Ganimos,

You were one step ahead of me and said it much more elegantly than I would.

As a moderator I will put my weight behind your request.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Jane Kennedy email

Jane Kennedy was the Government Minister who steered BN66/Section 58 through Parliament.

Subject: RE: clear conscience?
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 21:26:54 +0100
From: KENNEDYJ@parliament.uk
To: xxxxxx
CC: STAPLETONJ@parliament.uk

Dear Mr xxxxxx,

Thank you for your message and I do apologise for the very late reply. I have recieved an unusually large number of letters etc. I remember the debate and was content that, having questioned officials closely on the impact of this proposal, very few would be affected, certainly not in the way that your attachment is suggesting. I would strongly advise those who are affected to write, giving their name and address, to their MPs or, if they are Isle of Man residents, write directly to Stephen Timms MP, at the Treasury. They will only get a reply from the Minister if they write via an MP.

Each case should be looked at again by HMRC to check that the outcome is in line with the policy intention.

Yours sincerely,

Jane Kennedy MP

From: STAPLETON, Jean
Sent: 10 June 2009 10:43
To: KENNEDY, Jane
Subject: FW: clear conscience?


Jean Stapleton
PA to Rt. Hon. Jane Kennedy MP
108 Prescot Road
Liverpool L7 0JA
Tel: 0151-261-0332
Fax: 0151-261-0341


From: xxxxxxx
Sent: 10 June 2009 10:23
To: STAPLETON, Jean
Subject: clear conscience?

Dear Ms Stapleton,

This occurred while Ms Kennedy was Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

During the debate on s58 (Clause 55 Finance Bill 2008), Ms Kennedy stated:

"I am happy and content, given the advice that I have received, that the decision I am asking the Committee to make today is right."

"I believe that we can pass the clause with a clear conscience."

I wonder if she would still stand by these statements having read the attached witness testimonies?
Sample survey of 92 people affected by Section 58

I am prepared to give Ms Kennedy the benefit of the doubt that she may have been badly briefed, perhaps even deliberately misled and manipulated by HMRC.

It would refreshing to get a frank and honest response from a politician but I am not holding my breath!

Yours sincerely,

xxxxxx

[swede]

If you needed a reason to write/meet your MP, read the previous post.

We are even getting very positive and supportive responses from Labour MPs.

MPs seem genuinely shocked at the scale and impact of this retro tax.

I finally received a reply back form my MP who has written to the Treasury for a response. I'll wait to see what he comes back with before arranging a meeting with the chap.

[OnYourBikeGB]

Thank you Ganimos,

You were one step ahead of me and said it much more elegantly than I would.

As a moderator I will put my weight behind your request.

I suspect I speak for a lot of people when I say that if 'just doing their job' involves deliberately misleading Parliament, passing this obscene law when then end result will be my personal ruin and huge damage to my family's future x 3000 I think some people deserve to be sworn at. As for naming them, well, as they said in court, they know who we are. I'll refrain from profanity, because I don't want to get banned, but that doesn't change what I think of the HMRC bods who are behind this. I won't be shaking hands after a fair fight.

[SantaClaus]

Ganimos, I agree with everything you say regarding the future of our children. I too worry about my daughters future, should I be made bankrupt. The lives of thousands of children will be wrecked by the actions of government and HMRC.

However, I cannot agree with you on the issue of blame. The blame lies without question at the feet of the tax collectors (and we all know exactly who they are).

The tax collectors and their tax counsel were complicit in drawing up a deliberate plan to mislead parliament into passing section 58 of the 2008 Finance Bill (which by the way is a treasonable offence). They knew exactly what they were doing and one of their motives was to cover up their incompetency in leaving the tax loophole open for so long.