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

[OnYourBikeGB]

Its a public forum

Lets just say It went very well & it was a party that was against retrospection...... DR has the details

[warlord]

Meeting with my MP today (Con)

Saw my MP today (post Gaukes standard letter). I have been writing to my MP for three years now (letters going back from Timms, Darling etc). After making me wait 40mins, he seemed totally unprepared (who I was, why was I here to see him). After spending a few minutes brining him up to speed - he made a few comments:-
1) “Using a off-shore scheme is not good” (I informed him it was completely legal, declared to HMRC and mentioned TE63 etc etc)
2) “Having lost the court cases, how was I going to pay my 100K bill?”
3) “Have I asked a bank loan me the money?”
4) “What savings do I have?”
5) “Have I asked HMRC for payment terms?”

After informing him that I was here for his help – I went through things like “HMRC never told me that the scheme did not work” or “that they would Retro tax me from 2002 to 2008”…..
He agree that Gauke should indeed answer the shortcomings in his latest standard letter and that he would write to Gauke ASAP and get his answers.

I mentioned Jane Kennedy and her emails etc and lack of HMRC Impact assessment or not using the Rees Rules (which he had never heard of) – all to which he said NOTHING and just made a strange noise in mouth – I pushed the issue and at which point I was informed my time was UP (10 minutes) and did I know that there where 3 other people waiting to see him☹

[nevergiveup]

Saw my MP today (post Gaukes standard letter). I have been writing to my MP for three years now (letters going back from Timms, Darling etc). After making me wait 40mins, he seemed totally unprepared (who I was, why was I here to see him). After spending a few minutes brining him up to speed - he made a few comments:-
1) “Using a off-shore scheme is not good” (I informed him it was completely legal, declared to HMRC and mentioned TE63 etc etc)
2) “Having lost the court cases, how was I going to pay my 100K bill?”
3) “Have I asked a bank loan me the money?”
4) “What savings do I have?”
5) “Have I asked HMRC for payment terms?”

After informing him that I was here for his help – I went through things like “HMRC never told me that the scheme did not work” or “that they would Retro tax me from 2002 to 2008”…..
He agree that Gauke should indeed answer the shortcomings in his latest standard letter and that he would write to Gauke ASAP and get his answers.

I mentioned Jane Kennedy and her emails etc and lack of HMRC Impact assessment or not using the Rees Rules (which he had never heard of) – all to which he said NOTHING and just made a strange noise in mouth – I pushed the issue and at which point I was informed my time was UP (10 minutes) and did I know that there where 3 other people waiting to see him☹

It just goes to show that some of them don't read any of the info we send them. That's just unacceptable not to be prepared for a meeting. Gees. If I went into meetings unprepared, I'd be out of a job before you could say clarification!

Disgraceful.

[moira under the stairs]

Saw my MP today (post Gaukes standard letter). I have been writing to my MP for three years now (letters going back from Timms, Darling etc). After making me wait 40mins, he seemed totally unprepared (who I was, why was I here to see him). After spending a few minutes brining him up to speed - he made a few comments:-
1) “Using a off-shore scheme is not good” (I informed him it was completely legal, declared to HMRC and mentioned TE63 etc etc)
2) “Having lost the court cases, how was I going to pay my 100K bill?”
3) “Have I asked a bank loan me the money?”
4) “What savings do I have?”
5) “Have I asked HMRC for payment terms?”

After informing him that I was here for his help – I went through things like “HMRC never told me that the scheme did not work” or “that they would Retro tax me from 2002 to 2008”…..
He agree that Gauke should indeed answer the shortcomings in his latest standard letter and that he would write to Gauke ASAP and get his answers.

I mentioned Jane Kennedy and her emails etc and lack of HMRC Impact assessment or not using the Rees Rules (which he had never heard of) – all to which he said NOTHING and just made a strange noise in mouth – I pushed the issue and at which point I was informed my time was UP (10 minutes) and did I know that there where 3 other people waiting to see him☹

Name and shame the To$$er

[Toocan]

Saw my MP today (post Gaukes standard letter). I have been writing to my MP for three years now (letters going back from Timms, Darling etc). After making me wait 40mins, he seemed totally unprepared (who I was, why was I here to see him). After spending a few minutes brining him up to speed - he made a few comments:-
1) “Using a off-shore scheme is not good” (I informed him it was completely legal, declared to HMRC and mentioned TE63 etc etc)
2) “Having lost the court cases, how was I going to pay my 100K bill?”
3) “Have I asked a bank loan me the money?”
4) “What savings do I have?”
5) “Have I asked HMRC for payment terms?”

After informing him that I was here for his help – I went through things like “HMRC never told me that the scheme did not work” or “that they would Retro tax me from 2002 to 2008”…..
He agree that Gauke should indeed answer the shortcomings in his latest standard letter and that he would write to Gauke ASAP and get his answers.

I mentioned Jane Kennedy and her emails etc and lack of HMRC Impact assessment or not using the Rees Rules (which he had never heard of) – all to which he said NOTHING and just made a strange noise in mouth – I pushed the issue and at which point I was informed my time was UP (10 minutes) and did I know that there where 3 other people waiting to see him☹

MPs are there to represent you. If you were a plumber and refused to "plum", or a joiner and refused to "join" - you'd be out of a job pretty quickly.

I wonder if your MP feels it is acceptable to mislead Parliament?

[SantaClaus]

MPs are there to represent you. If you were a plumber and refused to "plum", or a joiner and refused to "join" - you'd be out of a job pretty quickly.

I wonder if your MP feels it is acceptable to mislead Parliament?

Maybe we should put up our own candidates in those constituencies where an MP can just about string a sentence together.

[Disgusted of Coventry]

Document B025

Can you believe this? It's the definition of duplicity. Paragraph 7 of B025 reads...

"7. Before any cases were listed, however, the Government announced in the Budget of 12th March 2008 proposals to introduce legislation retrospectively to put beyong doubt the question of the validity of claims such as those made by the claimant."

Whereas it ought to read like this...

"7. HMRC reneged on its agreement, however, and instead deceived the Government into announcing in the Budget of 12th March 2008 proposals to introduce legislation retrospectively to negate the validity of claims such as those made by the claimant."

Unbelievable!

[nevergiveup]

Maybe we should put up our own candidates in those constituencies where an MP can just about string a sentence together.

Lets just put a list of MP's who don't care on the notoretro website and shame them (then send the MP the link)!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Tory MPs

Some Tories have been supportive but there is a bit of a pattern emerging.

I get the feeling they are being urged to discourage us. I'm not sure if this is coming from Gauke & Co in the Treasury or Tory Central Office.

If your MP is being unhelpful they may need a bit of prodding to do their job ie. represent you as their constituent.

[Dieselpower]

Some Tories have been supportive but there is a bit of a pattern emerging.

I get the feeling they are being urged to discourage us. I'm not sure if this is coming from Gauke & Co in the Treasury or Tory Central Office.

If your MP is being unhelpful they may need a bit of prodding to do their job ie. represent you as their constituent.

Any MPs that disregard the plain fact that they have collectively been misled and made a complete mockery of, should reconsider their position as an MP, surely. If they accept the tail wagging the dog, they should seek another position; at the Inland Revenue perhaps.

The way to approach an apathetic MP is by going on about the fact that Kennedy spouted a load of patently incorrect information, which then caused Parliament to vote in favour of a bill on false pretences.