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

[ready_to_leave]

Lets look at the facts:
1. No one cares that we get screwed over
2. HMRC and the Treasury are never, ever, ever, ever, ever going to change their mind
3. We have a current set of Socialist progressives in Gov and this is even more so in the civil service
4. No one cares about the law
5. no one cares about misleading, lying, corrupt civil servants (otherwise there would be no civil service)
6. HMRC do not even have to follow their own published clear advice as a well known recent court case shows
7. No one cares if we are bankrupted
8. No one in Gov cares about the law
9. No one the civil service cares about the law
10. MPs have no say in what happens (hint - its all vested in the executive and MPs are there for show)
11. Parliaments will is what the gov says it is - irrespective of hansard or a youtube video of Norman Lamont dancing to the Beatle's taxman and saying over and over that it does not apply specifically in our case.

Lets look at the facts:
- Hmrc and parliament knew they left "loopholes" (lord lamont) open in 1987 when they legislated against padmores specific arrangement (see Hansard, professional press, and probably countless internal meeting minutes at inland revenue)
- they were to keep its use under review
- no one owed back tax as a result of that legislation
- Hmrc knew of Montpellier's arrangements use (different to padmores in the way Hansard and professional press describe) since the early 1990s (in their tax manual)
- they issued a warning to tax offices in 2003
- they accepted many claims after enquiry and left many many more unchallenged both leading to legitimate expectation
- they first stated that they didn't accept that the arrangement was legal (and by didn't accept I mean the first time they didnt state that they didn't want individuals to pay too much or too little tax) in may 2007.
- this was also the first time they offerred taxpayers to make payment on account
- in march 2008 they announced they were to change the law retrospectively. Not a clarification, as they told parliament, but a change in the law.
- they now argue it was always parliaments intent to tax in this way but as seen above this is not true.
- people are suffering stress. Lives are at best on hold. Families are breaking up. People face bankruptcy, and a lot worse!

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong!

[Dazed and Confused]

I met him today and had a 20-25 minute discussion. I have sent a full and frank report to NTRT and Whitehouse so I'll give some highlights here.

- He had Gaukes/HMRC's latest letter in front of him and had been briefed on the JR which means at least we are reaching the highest levels.

- He defended the Gauke letter quite agressively using the JR results as his main weapon interfering with the retrospection - 'the courts have decided it was justified' etc etc. That gave me an opportunity to bring in the HMRC deviousness and lies leading up to it.

- Had sympathy with my view on the inaction and not getting our day in court at the time.

- Was surprisingly more aggressive than I thought from the outset, which I didn't really expect but didn't mind as I could counter a lot of it. And it means he's taking notice.

- He talked more than he listened... read into that what you will... tried a bit too hard to defend the Treasury I thought.

He did agree to write to Gauke and urge him to meet NTRT to discuss the latest letter and HMRC 'lies'.

What I would say is that if I can go face to face with the PM on this, then all you people who haven't yet met their MP because they are (justifiably) a bit nervous in meeting them, have nothing to lose or fear! Go for it. Our views have reached the top and we need more voices inside Westminster to back us up!

Great job NB, that must have been quite a surreal experience sitting there opposite the PM!

I couldn't agree more with your last statement. My MP is a member of the cabinet and I was really anxious about my meeting with him last month but I'm so glad that I went through with it. Just knowing that I had taken steps well out of my comfort zone to fight our cause was a huge stress reliever.

Everyone out there who hasn't yet met with their MP needs to call, make an appointment and go! While our letter writing is obviously important, I believe the face-to-face is worth so much more. Next time our MPs (or PM in your case) hears of Section 58, he'll remember our meetings, see our faces etc. This has to have more umph than them just having signed a few letters that were clearly penned by someone else.

[nevergiveup]

Well done NB - good effort. My turn tomorrow morning with another Tory.

Well done NB and good luck lucozade for tomorrow. Let us know how you get on.

[centurian]

Was surprisingly more aggressive than I thought from the outset

That's because he thinks you are a "morally repugnant" person.

Very well done though. Must have been really nerve wrangling. Did you have images of PMQ's in your mind when waiting to go in.

He was never going to announce he was repealing s58, but at least it might help put over that s58 is not hitting multi millionaires, but rather those on above average salaries and that retrospection, whilst validated as legal by courts, really is a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

[lucozade]

Mark Menzies meeting

Just back from a fairly positive meeting.

Once again Mark has offered assistance and didn't shy away from the subject.

He did advise that in the background he's now had 2 meetings with Mr Gauke and it has been made perfectly clear to him that the treasury are NOT going to back down from their stance. OUCH.

I explained how I entered into a perfectly legal scheme in 2004 and that the law was changed in 2008 using a time machine. I put up a fight when he claimed it was only "clarification". I basically said "use whatever words the treasury may wish you to use but no matter how you gloss over it - it's changing the law backwards, something I'd expect during Hitlers reign but not in the United Kingdom".

That point hit home hard with him and he's agreed to push George Osborne for answers to the points made by the campaign over the "real facts" of the case and no more waffle.

He apparently can't sign the cross-party letter due to his position as a Parliamentary Secretary but is more than willing to maintain support for me the individual.

I feel good having had the meeting but now I need to compile a summary letter to send to him in response to our meeting. He has promised to raise questions on the points I make and those in the briefing notes.

[Slobbo]

I met him today and had a 20-25 minute discussion. I have sent a full and frank report to NTRT and Whitehouse so I'll give some highlights here.

- He had Gaukes/HMRC's latest letter in front of him and had been briefed on the JR which means at least we are reaching the highest levels.

- He defended the Gauke letter quite agressively using the JR results as his main weapon interfering with the retrospection - 'the courts have decided it was justified' etc etc. That gave me an opportunity to bring in the HMRC deviousness and lies leading up to it.

- Had sympathy with my view on the inaction and not getting our day in court at the time.

- Was surprisingly more aggressive than I thought from the outset, which I didn't really expect but didn't mind as I could counter a lot of it. And it means he's taking notice.

- He talked more than he listened... read into that what you will... tried a bit too hard to defend the Treasury I thought.

He did agree to write to Gauke and urge him to meet NTRT to discuss the latest letter and HMRC 'lies'.

What I would say is that if I can go face to face with the PM on this, then all you people who haven't yet met their MP because they are (justifiably) a bit nervous in meeting them, have nothing to lose or fear! Go for it. Our views have reached the top and we need more voices inside Westminster to back us up!

You should have pointed at Guakes comments from the original sitting regarding retrospection. He was a staunch supporter of removing the retrospective element of the original change to the law.

Bad news from me I am afraid. My wife wrote to Thomas Doherty to ask how they got on at the briefing only to get a very short letter back saying sod off take the scheme arrangers to court.

We are going to write back and ask for a more detailed reasoned response as it is obvious that either a) they didn't attend after saying someone in his office would attend or b) he just can't be bothered in which case why is he an MP.

Here is a thought. If we took Mont P (I am not saying we should) to court and when it got thrown out because MontP had no way of knowing that HMRC had a time machine is that not proof that HMRC changed the law rather than "clarified it". Would that help with anything?

[AlbionRovers]

Just remember folks, regardless of who your MP is, prime minister or otherwise, as your MP he is here to serve you. Don't be fobbed off with dismissive comments, that's what they want us to do for an easy shift. They all have a duty to the public here.

[foolishboy]

Just remember folks, regardless of who your MP is, prime minister or otherwise, as your MP he is here to serve you. Don't be fobbed off with dismissive comments, that's what they want us to do for an easy shift. They all have a duty to the public here.

Thats what they want you to believe, they want to be elected by you but have no intention of serving you (with the very rare exception)

Unfortunately most, including my own MP, are career politicians who have never worked in the real world and follow political and ideological theory to the letter and represent their own self serving interests. Whats right for us is not right for them. Thats just the way it is, lifes not fair, it never has been.

Dont get me wrong, I am up for the fight and will argue the point before a tribunal if I am allowed, but I accept now that its highly likely I will lose and have to face the consequences.

[smalldog]

Need some positivity in next ntrt newsletter. Can't say I'm feeling too optimistic at this point.

[lucozade]

Need some positivity in next ntrt newsletter. Can't say I'm feeling too optimistic at this point.

As my MP recommended we have to hammer home the injustice of doing something legal that was merely clarified according to the treasury and then made law using a time machine. My response letter to him is going to contain some strong language as I'm now at the point of feeling sick that a government department (HMRC) is allowed to behave in this manner and play with people's lives. This has become very personal for me now and it's simply a witchhunt and I'm not going down without taking others with me. I'll bloody camp outside parliament if I have to.