No To Retro Tax – Campaign Against Section 58 Finance Act 2008

[OldITGit]

Excellent Work

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

Well Done Brillo, you have a good MP there irrespective of Party

[nick4notax]

Shocker!!!

Well Done Brillo, you have a good MP there irrespective of Party

Have to say, if Ed Balls comes back with a firm response in our favour, I'm going to consider voting Labour in the next election!! Never, ever thought I would hear myself saying that, but if they recognise what Efford and Jane Kennedy are saying, then it's appropriate to support their attempts to rectify it. For me, this has been the single massive issue dominating my life for the last 9 or so YEARS! LABOUR researchers: read this as "potential voters lurk here"

[Buzby]

make sure you have gone to see your MP

Well Done Brillo, you have a good MP there irrespective of Party

and another good reason to see your MP. great that an MP isn't just going to write to Gauke and get the standard response.

Brillo - well worth you spending the time with your MP - thanks.

[bananarepublic]

Surprised and Hopeful

I must admit I was pleased and surprised that S58 got a mention yesterday in the committee. Obviously emotions are running high about what was or was not said, but half the battle has been won in that we have had a hearing. It is also significant that the government did not/could not stiffle this.

What yesterday showed is that Gauke cannot count on the support of other Conservative MPs which if you consider the original S58 debate in 2008 is a critical difference. In addition a retraction from somebody who supported the original S58 clause is also very important.

We should also understand why S58 is important especially to those MPs brave enough to stand up and be counted. Fundamentally S58 is an abuse of power which transcends our circumstances. Presumably this is why Gauke doesn't want to meet NTRT, the whole thing must be very uncomfortable for him.

[Basher]

Everyone MUST go and see their MP !!!

Letters are a good start but a face to face meeting really brings it home to them and shows that real ordinary people are affected by this and genuinley face having their lives ruined.

Its not about faceless large companies or millionaire celebrities. Its about the man in the street.

Its wrong !

[BrilloPad]

and another good reason to see your MP. great that an MP isn't just going to write to Gauke and get the standard response.

Brillo - well worth you spending the time with your MP - thanks.

Thankfully no-one has quoted my earlier posts about Clive Efford!

I was very very nervous and put off seeing him for ages. However I was spoon fed by DR, Santa, NTRT and Whitehouse - it could not have been easier - even for a thicko like me. It took me literally 5 minutes to prepare i.e. print off a couple of pages.

[nevergiveup]

Thankfully no-one has quoted my earlier posts about Clive Efford!

I was very very nervous and put off seeing him for ages. However I was spoon fed by DR, Santa, NTRT and Whitehouse - it could not have been easier - even for a thicko like me. It took me literally 5 minutes to prepare i.e. print off a couple of pages.

Well don BP. I've been trying to meet with my MP for ages. His latest response to a meeting request was:

Surgeries are for urgent personal crises, mostly for the weak and vulnerable and sometimes about life and death issues: there is one of me and 100,000 residents - is there to say on this which can't be put on an e mail?

I replied saying mine was an urgent personal crisis. To think I voted for this guy!

Oh I'm not giving up. I've fired him another meeting request today!

[swede]

That sucks

Well don BP. I've been trying to meet with my MP for ages. His latest response to a meeting request was:

Surgeries are for urgent personal crises, mostly for the weak and vulnerable and sometimes about life and death issues: there is one of me and 100,000 residents - is there to say on this which can't be put on an e mail?

I replied saying mine was an urgent personal crisis. To think I voted for this guy!

Oh I'm not giving up. I've fired him another meeting request today!

Seriously, if you're not up to the job, find another one!

[BrilloPad]

Well don BP. I've been trying to meet with my MP for ages. His latest response to a meeting request was:

Surgeries are for urgent personal crises, mostly for the weak and vulnerable and sometimes about life and death issues: there is one of me and 100,000 residents - is there to say on this which can't be put on an e mail?

I replied saying mine was an urgent personal crisis. To think I voted for this guy!

Oh I'm not giving up. I've fired him another meeting request today!

Maybe find out when his next surgery is and just turn up? Not for the faint hearted!

[Fireship]

Sorry to barge into the conversation - just got this email from my MPs assistant :-

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

-----------------------------------------------------

I have passed onto the usual suspects.
Brillo

Nice work Brillo, hats off to both you and Clive!