• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Write to your mp!!!!

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #11
    Originally posted by demby View Post
    "The loan charge is not retrospective"

    What a complete ***t this bloke is
    Ive a few more words that might describe him base don some of his past voting... funny how so many people see it as 'retrospective taxation'

    Comment


      #12
      Got this reply!

      "Good Morning,

      Thank you for your email regarding EDM 1239 ‘The 2019 Loan Charge’.

      The 2019 Loan Charge has been introduced by the Treasury to tackle disguised remuneration tax avoidance schemes through which loans were paid instead of regular forms of remuneration in order to avoid income tax and national insurance contributions.

      The loan charge applies not just to contractors, but to all users of disguised remuneration schemes across all sectors. The loan charge will be applied only to disguised remuneration loan balances which remain outstanding on 5th April 2019.

      Those who will have an outstanding balance at that time can avoid the loan charge by repaying the loan, replacing it with commercial lending or agreeing a settlement with HMRC.

      The SNP has led the fight in Westminster against tax avoidance and evasion and supports efforts to ensure those who have avoided tax through these disguised remuneration schemes pay their fair share for the public services we all use.

      Having had to be dragged by the SNP into accepting the need to tackle the use of Scottish Limited Partnerships as money laundering vehicles and considering Magnitsky Powers to sanction overseas officials guilty of human rights violations, the UK Government must for once take decisive action, ensure any lost revenue is recouped by HMRC and that users of disguised remuneration schemes do not receive an effective tax cut through soft settlements.

      I trust that this is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact me again if I can be of further assistance in this or any other matter.

      With best wishes.

      Yours sincerely,
      "

      Comment


        #13
        Best Forum Adviser & Forum Personality of the Year 2018.

        (No, me neither).

        Comment


          #14
          ""Good Morning,

          Thank you for your email regarding EDM 1239 ‘The 2019 Loan Charge’ blah blah blah I don't care, sticking my fingers in my ears, can't hear you"

          I wonder if this self-righteous chap or chap-ess is bitter after getting caught fiddling their expenses?

          Comment


            #15
            So the SNP are against ISAs? Taxpayers are allowed to arrange their affairs to reduce the amount of tax they pay.

            They might want to start their crusade with foreign companies and high net worth foreigners.

            They might also look at https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ers-commercial .

            Looking specifically at the avoidance schemes, the SNP might ask why it took HMRC from 1999 to 2017 to close the loophole. What actions they are taking against promoters and those who advised on the schemes.

            A sense of proportion is needed here.

            They could also ask that HMRC are forced to have a duty of customer care.

            Comment


              #16
              Originally posted by kentishlad View Post
              Ive a few more words that might describe him base don some of his past voting... funny how so many people see it as 'retrospective taxation'
              The fact is, had this law existed previously, users would have more than likely made different choices about using the schemes.

              Comment


                #17
                Originally posted by BankingContract0r View Post
                The fact is, had this law existed previously, users would have more than likely made different choices about using the schemes.
                I dont disagree with you... I just wish I could retrospectively put my daily rate up and try and ask my previous employers to stump up 'what they owe' or else

                Comment


                  #18
                  Great work folks - Every Letter and Surgery visit counts even if your MP has signed the more constituents that visit them the more appreciative of the scale of the issue they will be. Each individual has their own story to tell and their own nuances.
                  This law is wholly unsound make sure your lawmaker knows that.

                  Comment


                    #19
                    Got a response today:
                    Dear NAME,

                    Thank you for your email.

                    I am currently making some enquiries with HM Treasury regarding the concerns you have raised in your email below.

                    As soon as a response has been received I will be back in touch.

                    In the meantime, if there are any further issues you wish to bring to my attention please don't hesistate to get back in contact.

                    Kind regards
                    NAME MP

                    Then asked him to sign the EDM and received this...
                    Thanks for responding.

                    I won't sign the EDM at the moment as they really don't serve any purpose. I would rather get a formal response from the Government and the Minister than signing the EDM.

                    I hope that's ok.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X