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

[helen7]

If your MP has been negative or unhelpful; be careful not to aggitage them too much. It could work against us; especially if they are close to anyody who has voting power on the Finance Bill.

I understand we have many MP's who support our cause. Do we have any indication how much support we have amoung those with voting rights? It is probably safe to assume that even those that support us could 'tow the party line' and give in.

If I remember during one debate on this subject, one MP was threatened with being thrown off the committee for not agreeing with the will of the chair of the meeting (Gauke I think). i.e. Agree with me or I'll damage your career.

[Boycie]

Dear Mr ...

Many thanks for your emails, which I have discussed with Dominic.

As a result of your correspondence Dominic has signed up to the tabled NC1 in order to register his support for the repeal of the retrospective application of 58(4) of the Finance Act 2008.

Best wishes,
...

I have also received a reply from Dominic Raab - he's basically said he will speak to Mark Field and see what more can be done - slightly different response to yours. I'll forward to Whitehouse.

Dominic was on Newsnight on 27th March discussing Abu Qatada deportation - when pushed by Paxman about modifying the law, he replied 'that would be retrospective - I think one thing Geoffrey and I agree on, this would be offensive to the Rule of Law.

I missed this one but a mate told me that last night, Vince Cable was on Channel 4 news discussing Amazon and tax avoidance: he said something along the lines of "Even if we could change the law, it couldn't be applied retrospectively".

[TAF4]

He doesn't hold surgeries?

Oh yes - he certainly does! But demands on his time are huge and mine is a hopeless case - apparently.

[DownButNotOut]

recently moved to West Yorks

Following on from yesterday's newsletter.

There will be another email sent out either today or Monday, with specific guidance on lobbying your MP to support the amendment.

Regards
DR

Recently moved to West Yorks and my MP is now Kris Hopkins.
Has anybody engaged with him regarding the campaign before I start lobbying him?

[Guttersnipe]

Phew!

Just met my MP. Quite some argument (calmly, that is). Wasn't as concise or ordered as I would have liked but managed to get most of our points across and counter all of his. For others, the items which I believe scored good points were:

1) 1987 specific exclusion of trusts plus TN63 meant we had legitimate cause to believe the scheme was OK. This was to counter suggestions that, "if you're doing that sort of thing you have to accept there's a risk and prepare for it";
2) The subsequent, post-Government opinions of Jane Kennedy et al that they didn't appreciate the impact of what was being voted through;
3) Objections of Gauke (in Parliament) and Cameron and Osbourne (via email) to the original legislation;
4) Current policy clearly stating that schemes are to be closed prospectively.

He was well-briefed (he's in the Treasury) and towards the end of the session discussion began to revolve around the practicalities (amount HMRC thinks they could collect, current climate to shutting down schemes quickly - "but not retrospectively, Minister" - , etc.).

All in all, I'd recommend anyone do it. Once the obvious ("you're an aggressive tax avoider, what did you expect") objections had been met there seemed to be an understanding that this was, at the least, philosophically wrong.

I doubt I've swung it, but pretty sure our column is further in credit.

[TalkingCheese]

Phew!

Just met my MP. Quite some argument (calmly, that is). Wasn't as concise or ordered as I would have liked but managed to get most of our points across and counter all of his. For others, the items which I believe scored good points were:

1) 1987 specific exclusion of trusts plus TN63 meant we had legitimate cause to believe the scheme was OK. This was to counter suggestions that, "if you're doing that sort of thing you have to accept there's a risk and prepare for it";
2) The subsequent, post-Government opinions of Jane Kennedy et al that they didn't appreciate the impact of what was being voted through;
3) Objections of Gauke (in Parliament) and Cameron and Osbourne (via email) to the original legislation;
4) Current policy clearly stating that schemes are to be closed prospectively.

He was well-briefed (he's in the Treasury) and towards the end of the session discussion began to revolve around the practicalities (amount HMRC thinks they could collect, current climate to shutting down schemes quickly - "but not retrospectively, Minister" - , etc.).

All in all, I'd recommend anyone do it. Once the obvious ("you're an aggressive tax avoider, what did you expect") objections had been met there seemed to be an understanding that this was, at the least, philosophically wrong.

I doubt I've swung it, but pretty sure our column is further in credit.

Nice one GS !

I reckon this is a very common scenario...
- MP sees tax dodger and is blind to the complications of this case (just another scheme). "You should have expected it and evaluated the risk."
- Once MP starts to become aware of what happened and that this is a unique case in the way it has been handled they start to see the injustice. This is done with a few salient points made over 15 mins as you mention.

We just need the doubters to take it that step further and delve a little deeper to fully understand the issue.

Unfortunately it is just too easy to put the blinkers on, but with meetings like yours we are getting there.

Good job...

[smalldog]

Phew!

Just met my MP. Quite some argument (calmly, that is). Wasn't as concise or ordered as I would have liked but managed to get most of our points across and counter all of his. For others, the items which I believe scored good points were:

1) 1987 specific exclusion of trusts plus TN63 meant we had legitimate cause to believe the scheme was OK. This was to counter suggestions that, "if you're doing that sort of thing you have to accept there's a risk and prepare for it";
2) The subsequent, post-Government opinions of Jane Kennedy et al that they didn't appreciate the impact of what was being voted through;
3) Objections of Gauke (in Parliament) and Cameron and Osbourne (via email) to the original legislation;
4) Current policy clearly stating that schemes are to be closed prospectively.

He was well-briefed (he's in the Treasury) and towards the end of the session discussion began to revolve around the practicalities (amount HMRC thinks they could collect, current climate to shutting down schemes quickly - "but not retrospectively, Minister" - , etc.).

All in all, I'd recommend anyone do it. Once the obvious ("you're an aggressive tax avoider, what did you expect") objections had been met there seemed to be an understanding that this was, at the least, philosophically wrong.

I doubt I've swung it, but pretty sure our column is further in credit.

Good job GS, me and great escape need to go and camp out at Mr Afriyies surgery real soon to see if he can be turned, bit lax but had a new arrival so been very distracted with my baby daughter! TGE I will PM you and we need to sort soemthing in next week or two!!!!!

[normalbloke]

Phew!

Just met my MP. Quite some argument (calmly, that is). Wasn't as concise or ordered as I would have liked but managed to get most of our points across and counter all of his. For others, the items which I believe scored good points were:

1) 1987 specific exclusion of trusts plus TN63 meant we had legitimate cause to believe the scheme was OK. This was to counter suggestions that, "if you're doing that sort of thing you have to accept there's a risk and prepare for it";
2) The subsequent, post-Government opinions of Jane Kennedy et al that they didn't appreciate the impact of what was being voted through;
3) Objections of Gauke (in Parliament) and Cameron and Osbourne (via email) to the original legislation;
4) Current policy clearly stating that schemes are to be closed prospectively.

He was well-briefed (he's in the Treasury) and towards the end of the session discussion began to revolve around the practicalities (amount HMRC thinks they could collect, current climate to shutting down schemes quickly - "but not retrospectively, Minister" - , etc.).

All in all, I'd recommend anyone do it. Once the obvious ("you're an aggressive tax avoider, what did you expect") objections had been met there seemed to be an understanding that this was, at the least, philosophically wrong.

I doubt I've swung it, but pretty sure our column is further in credit.

Good job GS. Can't emphasise enough how important it is for as many of us as possible to meet with our MP's to get the message across face to face.

[Guttersnipe]

One other thing, mentioning Vodafone and the fact that this specific piece of legislation was raised in India in defence of Indian retrospection hit a nerve. "Showing Britain in a poor light, etc."

[doublebubble]

Afternoon All,

I met my MP today at one of his surgeries

I live in Thornton Cleveleys (Just outside Blackpool) so I come under Wyre constituency; therefore my MP is Paul Maynard

I had previously sent him 2 letters. In a reply, he had stated as a parliamentary Private Secretary he is not permitted to sign “round robin” letters ie the cross party letter, however he was prepared to write directly to the chancellor of the Exchequer on the issue and suggested it was more likely to receive a substantive response.

He started the meeting by saying his surgery appointments were generally 15minutes long however after looking at my previous letters hadn’t booked anyone in straight after me to give me time to fully explain the situation. He had also printed out copies of section 58 of the Finance Act 2008, and said he had read it (or enough to give him an understanding for our meeting. He went on to say he was thinking about it on the train home last night and what would be the right direction. I have to say, I was 100% impressed with his attitude and his effort to prepare himself for the meeting. I had printed off about 3 pages of notes from the No To Retrospective Taxation | Campaign Against Retrospective Tax Legislation website although had also printed off bullet points to highlight certain points.

He was very interested as to why David Gauke would have applied for the amendment to remove the retrospective element back in 2008, and yet now be the person defending it. He said he would contact Mr Gauke personally to ask for an explanation on this

I explained that the money HMRC are claiming to recoup by forcing retrospective payments is just false. For me personally its around +£100k and would make me bankrupt. The butterfly effect on this would just compound them receiving less money now and in the future.

For me personally; I am in a debt management scheme. After paying into it for 3 years I am in a position to offer a final settlement figure around £20k. This has currently been stopped because at the time of the agreement HMRC never voted and only £1,500 was included. Now I have offered the final settlement they are saying I owe +£100k. I re-iterated to my MP forcing this retrospective element would send me bankrupt and therefore £0 would be realised to my creditors or HMRC. He said he would write to HMRC regarding this situation as well.

He also asked for Montpeliers address so he could get their stance on this (obv not my personal situation)

He said from what he has read it appears the retrospective element is morally wrong however did say that it appeared in 1987 there was a “will of parliament” and it might come down to whether its decided a will of parliament is enough for the retrospective element is forced.

In summary I said from my laymans point its like driving down a street with a speed camera of 30mph. They then change it to 20mph, but send out speeding tickets for people who had previously driven from 20-30mph.

All in all I was very impressed with him and came away happy in the knowledge that even if he can’t make a difference it won’t be for the want of trying