Excellent Work
Well Done Brillo, you have a good MP there irrespective of Party
Originally posted by BrilloPad
View Post
Indeed. I got a nice response last night from my Labour MP - repeated below. Clive Efford was on the committee that passed BN66 and accepts he was misled by HMRC. Its a very clever letter - I am very grateful.
At this rate I am going to vote for him! I never ever thought I would vote Labour. The only reason I voted Liberal last time was so I could vote for Dr Tool - a great name for an MP (though a better one for a Bond villain).
------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr Pad,
Below is the text of an email I sent to Ed Balls after you came to visit me:
“Dear Ed
I have recently been contacted by a constituent who fears he is being pushed into bankruptcy by HMRC pursuing him for debts they say he owes through their retrospective use of Section 58 of the 2008 Finance Act.
Along with many colleagues in the IT industry my constituent used the S58 scheme post IR35 in 2000. During the period the loophole was open between 1993 and 2007 HMRC made no intimation that they would close the loophole and certainly no suggestion that they would seek to recover money using retrospective legislation.
In 2008 the used the Finance Act to close the loophole including in the legislation moves to allow HMRC to claw back money retrospectively.
My constituent is now facing a demand from HMRC fro £80,000 (£60,000 tax plus £20,000 interest). It has been calculated that over 3,000 people have been penalised retrospectively in this way. Many of these are, like my constituent, facing bankruptcy.
Jane Kennedy now apparently accepts that she did not know that so many people would be affected in this way.
Campaigners are now calling for section 58 to be amended so that it takes effect only from the date that the measure was first announced – budget note 66 on 12 March 2008.
This Act appears to have affected a relatively large number of people who have been caught up by the retrospective nature of the Act which does not seem to have been predicted at the time.
As we introduced this legislation and defeated attempts to stop it being backdated I thought it best to check what our position is now, particularly in the light of the information that Jane Kennedy accepts that it was a mistake. I look forward to hearing from you.
Best wishes
Clive Efford MP”
The reason we have contacted Ed Balls before we go to George Osborne is that he was working at the Treasury at the time. If we can show that there was no intention to use the Act retrospectively then we can put a strong argument to the current Chancellor.
Best wishes
Clive
At this rate I am going to vote for him! I never ever thought I would vote Labour. The only reason I voted Liberal last time was so I could vote for Dr Tool - a great name for an MP (though a better one for a Bond villain).
------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr Pad,
Below is the text of an email I sent to Ed Balls after you came to visit me:
“Dear Ed
I have recently been contacted by a constituent who fears he is being pushed into bankruptcy by HMRC pursuing him for debts they say he owes through their retrospective use of Section 58 of the 2008 Finance Act.
Along with many colleagues in the IT industry my constituent used the S58 scheme post IR35 in 2000. During the period the loophole was open between 1993 and 2007 HMRC made no intimation that they would close the loophole and certainly no suggestion that they would seek to recover money using retrospective legislation.
In 2008 the used the Finance Act to close the loophole including in the legislation moves to allow HMRC to claw back money retrospectively.
My constituent is now facing a demand from HMRC fro £80,000 (£60,000 tax plus £20,000 interest). It has been calculated that over 3,000 people have been penalised retrospectively in this way. Many of these are, like my constituent, facing bankruptcy.
Jane Kennedy now apparently accepts that she did not know that so many people would be affected in this way.
Campaigners are now calling for section 58 to be amended so that it takes effect only from the date that the measure was first announced – budget note 66 on 12 March 2008.
This Act appears to have affected a relatively large number of people who have been caught up by the retrospective nature of the Act which does not seem to have been predicted at the time.
As we introduced this legislation and defeated attempts to stop it being backdated I thought it best to check what our position is now, particularly in the light of the information that Jane Kennedy accepts that it was a mistake. I look forward to hearing from you.
Best wishes
Clive Efford MP”
The reason we have contacted Ed Balls before we go to George Osborne is that he was working at the Treasury at the time. If we can show that there was no intention to use the Act retrospectively then we can put a strong argument to the current Chancellor.
Best wishes
Clive
Comment