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

[TalkingCheese]

Afternoon All,

..,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 force...

Nice one DB. Only thing I would say, and I am sure you are aware, that we have proven that it was the will of parliament to leave this version of the arrangement the 1987 legislation affected open. They were to keep it "under review". The source of proof is:
- lord lamonts quote in 1987 that it was not the treasury committees main concern
- the avery jones article where it explains that our version of the arrangement was left open
- the hmrc tax manual referring to the arrangement in 1993 (I think)
- te63 in 2002
- something in 2005 (can't remember the title off the top of my head) clarifying that the 1987 Padmore legislation specifically only closed down the Padmore version of the arrangement (and not the other 2 well known about and publicised versions)

May be worth following up with a thanks and a pointer to the above...

Good job anyway, and impressed with the man himself.

[doublebubble]

Nice one DB. Only thing I would say, and I am sure you are aware, that we have proven that it was the will of parliament to leave this version of the arrangement the 1987 legislation affected open. They were to keep it "under review". The source of proof is:
- lord lamonts quote in 1987 that it was not the treasury committees main concern
- the avery jones article where it explains that our version of the arrangement was left open
- the hmrc tax manual referring to the arrangement in 1993 (I think)
- te63 in 2002
- something in 2005 (can't remember the title off the top of my head) clarifying that the 1987 Padmore legislation specifically only closed down the Padmore version of the arrangement (and not the other 2 well known about and publicised versions)

May be worth following up with a thanks and a pointer to the above...

Good job anyway, and impressed with the man himself.

thats great. I have to send him some info so will certainly quote the above

[Buzby]

loving Fridays

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
....

great news. hopefully we are making more MPs aware of the mistake and willing to now try and rectify.

[SantaClaus]

Excellent stuff DoubleBubble!

[VictorValiant]

Good Support from MP

Met this morning - for the third time - with my local MP Ian Murray (Labour). He has been supportive from the very beginning and showed his support by adding his signature to the Cross Party petition that was issued recently. We discussed the current situation and the way forward. He continues to be very eager to help us and is very much on our side - to the extent that he will write to all the Committee members who are due to debate the upcoming amendment next month (scheduled for 20th June I believe) encouraging them to vote for the amendment. He even indicated his willingness to have a "personal word" with the various members of the Scottish Contingent involved with the Committee and try to persuade them to proffer their support. I am heartened by his manner and his belief in our case and could not - as it stands just now - ask him to do more.
He continues to be suprised by the "volte-face" exhibited by some Government members compared to their views when in Opposition and even suggested that there may be an element of subterfuge or "protecting someone" behind this aspect. We will probably never know.
All in all a most encouraging session.

[TalkingCheese]

Met this morning - for the third time - with my local MP Ian Murray (Labour). He has been supportive from the very beginning and showed his support by adding his signature to the Cross Party petition that was issued recently. We discussed the current situation and the way forward. He continues to be very eager to help us and is very much on our side - to the extent that he will write to all the Committee members who are due to debate the upcoming amendment next month (scheduled for 20th June I believe) encouraging them to vote for the amendment. He even indicated his willingness to have a "personal word" with the various members of the Scottish Contingent involved with the Committee and try to persuade them to proffer their support. I am heartened by his manner and his belief in our case and could not - as it stands just now - ask him to do more.
He continues to be suprised by the "volte-face" exhibited by some Government members compared to their views when in Opposition and even suggested that there may be an element of subterfuge or "protecting someone" behind this aspect. We will probably never know.
All in all a most encouraging session.

Excellent VV. important to keep those on side up with developments too.

Lots of encouraging mp meetings going on. If you haven't had a chat with yours recently then please get out there. Now is more important than it has ever been throughout this debacle.

Although there is lots going on there is also still a lot to do to spread the word to MPs not in the know yet and sitting in front of them is the best way.

[the great escape]

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!!!!!

I will contact Frances at NTRT and see if we can come in from a different angle - maybe via Parachute through the roof.

[reckless]

He continues to be suprised by the "volte-face" exhibited by some Government members compared to their views when in Opposition and even suggested that there may be an element of subterfuge or "protecting someone" behind this aspect. We will probably never know.
All in all a most encouraging session.[/QUOTE]

Good show Victor Valiant. I think your MP is definitely onto something regarding subterfuge and protection. Even given the current witch-hunt of 'tax-avoiders', something just does not stack up regarding the previous vehement opposition to section 58, by Cameron/Osborne/Gauke and their current whole-hearted support. One can but wonder what deals have been done behind the scene.

[Goinroamin]

Mp Follow up

This issue of the change of mind is something that my MP was very interested in and we discussed it at length.

After carrying out some of his own checks he has now followed up with another letter to Mr Gauke asking the following 2 specific questions;

What new information do you have to trigger such a dramatic change of mind
Why was this scheme subject to such exceptional retrospective legislation

I realise that he will probably trot out the usual story but for me it was just a good sign that my MP has listened investigate and picked up on some, if not all of the points in this case

[swede]

ping

Hello world.