If you get the brush off
Some Tory MPs, who've been whipped into line by Gauke, will just see the subject and send a fob off reply without reading it.
Email them back and ask them to read the last 2 paragraphs highlighted.
Some Tory MPs, who've been whipped into line by Gauke, will just see the subject and send a fob off reply without reading it.
Email them back and ask them to read the last 2 paragraphs highlighted.
Dear [insert MP’s name],
I have previously written to you about Section 58(4) of the Finance Act 2008 and how the retrospective application of this law is threatening to force thousands of people, including myself, into bankruptcy, simply for arranging my affairs in a manner that was entirely transparent and legal at the time.
As you may know, there are serious concerns about the way in which this legislation was presented to Parliament. When deciding to implement these tax changes retrospectively, HMRC ignored the Rees rules, which state that clear warning of the Government’s intentions must be given. HMRC failed to carry out an impact assessment, which would have alerted MPs to the fact that thousands of people were likely to be affected by the changes. MPs were also not informed that HMRC had recognised in an internal technical exchange document that the tax schemes in question were entirely legal, that the schemes had been included in the HMRC tax manual since 1993, and that HMRC had previously investigated scheme users and issued closure notices with nothing further to pay, thus accepting that their tax affairs were legitimate.
Indeed, because of these omissions, there are real reasons to believe that Parliament may have been misled by HMRC into passing Section 58(4) retrospectively when there was no need to do so.
While I do not dispute that the Government has a right to make changes to tax legislation and close down loopholes where they do exist, it is draconian and iniquitous to change legislation retrospectively and then pursue people for backdated liabilities which may arise, particularly when those involved have followed the law as it stood and such retrospective demands are likely to have a crippling financial effect on them.
I understand that an amendment is due to be tabled imminently to this year’s Finance Bill which would remove the retrospective application of Section 58(4) and mean that the tax changes it introduced would only come into effect from the date they were first announced. This would not only bring the legislation in line with Parliamentary protocol and natural justice, but prevent myself and thousands of others from being unfairly forced into bankruptcy.
I would be most grateful if you could contact the Exchequer Secretary David Gauke MP as a matter of urgency on my behalf and urge him to support this amendment. I would also appreciate it if you could send me a copy of any reply you may receive.
Yours sincerely,
I have previously written to you about Section 58(4) of the Finance Act 2008 and how the retrospective application of this law is threatening to force thousands of people, including myself, into bankruptcy, simply for arranging my affairs in a manner that was entirely transparent and legal at the time.
As you may know, there are serious concerns about the way in which this legislation was presented to Parliament. When deciding to implement these tax changes retrospectively, HMRC ignored the Rees rules, which state that clear warning of the Government’s intentions must be given. HMRC failed to carry out an impact assessment, which would have alerted MPs to the fact that thousands of people were likely to be affected by the changes. MPs were also not informed that HMRC had recognised in an internal technical exchange document that the tax schemes in question were entirely legal, that the schemes had been included in the HMRC tax manual since 1993, and that HMRC had previously investigated scheme users and issued closure notices with nothing further to pay, thus accepting that their tax affairs were legitimate.
Indeed, because of these omissions, there are real reasons to believe that Parliament may have been misled by HMRC into passing Section 58(4) retrospectively when there was no need to do so.
While I do not dispute that the Government has a right to make changes to tax legislation and close down loopholes where they do exist, it is draconian and iniquitous to change legislation retrospectively and then pursue people for backdated liabilities which may arise, particularly when those involved have followed the law as it stood and such retrospective demands are likely to have a crippling financial effect on them.
I understand that an amendment is due to be tabled imminently to this year’s Finance Bill which would remove the retrospective application of Section 58(4) and mean that the tax changes it introduced would only come into effect from the date they were first announced. This would not only bring the legislation in line with Parliamentary protocol and natural justice, but prevent myself and thousands of others from being unfairly forced into bankruptcy.
I would be most grateful if you could contact the Exchequer Secretary David Gauke MP as a matter of urgency on my behalf and urge him to support this amendment. I would also appreciate it if you could send me a copy of any reply you may receive.
Yours sincerely,
Comment