Reply to: Would you sign this Petition?

[bassy]

Not in the scheme either but retrospective legislation is a very bad thing. As someone said earlier when would it stop and what else could be "tightened up" and brought in retrospectively. So am perfectly happy to sign a petition.

[Diver]

I wasn't in the scheme but retrospective legislation is akin to criminal negligence.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

You should just put the petition onto the No 10 site. I am sure lots of us, that use other forums will be able to promote it. Also it would be possible to have links to your petition on our own web sites

Watch this space...

[Little'Old Me]

I did say "may".

Since the merger of Customs & Excise and the Inland Revenue, the bully boy culture of the former seems to have taken over completely. My brother-in-law used to work for C&E, and the only pleasure he got out of the job was frightening and intimidating people. Fortunately, he quit and has now successfully reintegrated into society.

The HMRC are better than in the past, almost "human" .... - but I think much of it is due to the Staffing cut backs and constant re-organisations.

You should just put the petition onto the No 10 site. I am sure lots of us, that use other forums will be able to promote it. Also it would be possible to have links to your petition on our own web sites

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Really?

I did say "may".

Since the merger of Customs & Excise and the Inland Revenue, the bully boy culture of the former seems to have taken over completely. My brother-in-law used to work for C&E, and the only pleasure he got out of the job was frightening and intimidating people. Fortunately, he quit and has now successfully reintegrated into society.

[NickNick]

Only a Tory Govt may save us from further excesses.

Really?

[TykeMerc]

Be warned, you haven't heard the last from them. Only a Tory Govt may save us from further excesses.

Sadly I doubt that any UK government will ignore an opportunity to collect additional tax so long as it doesn't change the Headline grabbing tax rates, they're all very much of a muchness when it comes to trousering tax money for their pet projects.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I look forward to your response when Labour retrospectively clarify IR35 and ask for the last 8 years tax....with interest.

If a precedent is set now for retrospective legislation we might as well all be PAYE.

Let's be under no illusion here, it was HMRC who were behind this legislation. They dithered over the enquiry for 5 years and when they finally realised they wouldn't win in court, they got the Govt to legislate. The tail was definitely wagging the dog in this case.

And let's not forget, this isn't the first time that HMRC have tried to pull a stunt like this. Remember Arctic? That may not have been new legislation but it was still a blatant attempt at a retrospective tax grab.

Be warned, you haven't heard the last from them. Only a Tory Govt may save us from further excesses.

[helen7]

To all those who answered no (andyw).

I look forward to your response when Labour retrospectively clarify IR35 and ask for the last 8 years tax....with interest.

If a precedent is set now for retrospective legislation we might as well all be PAYE.

Who knows, maybe they will ask for retrospective tax on my other 'tax avoidance' schemas (ISA, pension). Yes, an ISA is tax avoidance....and so is a pension. Shame on any of your for using them and robbing all those ordinary people trying to claim there dole in peace.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Version 2

Ok, how about this. I have toned it down a bit.

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to..
Hold an independent inquiry to re-examine the retrospective legislation in Section 58 Finance Act 2008

More details about your petition (1000 characters maximum):
Section 58 attracted widespread criticism from the very start.

The Chartered Institute of Taxation thought it was “extreme and unjustified”; the Law Society believed it was “wrong in principle”; and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales warned, “it sends out a very damaging signal about the stability of the UK tax system”.

However, what these organisations were unaware of, and what is alleged here, is that Parliament may have been misled into passing Section 58.

The then Financial Secretary to the Treasury Jane Kennedy must have been very badly briefed by officials because the testimony she gave to the Treasury Committee on 22 May 2008 was full of incorrect and misleading statements, and crucial facts about the case were not disclosed. Although opposition MPs raised amendments, they were overturned on division.

Hundreds of families are now facing financial ruin as a result of Section 58. All we are asking for is an independent inquiry to review the legislation.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

wonder if it might be worth mentioning the opposition parties proposed amendements which were overturned on division...

I'll try but I've only got 1000 characters to play with.

[poppy01]

looks fine ... wonder if it might be worth mentioning the opposition parties proposed amendements which were overturned on division...

I still think the very idea of retrospective legislation is anathema to most right thinking people, and they are very open right now to criticism of this government and it's erosion of our rights and freedoms. I still say we if word the advert correctly and we'll get support. Those who dont support us, wont sign the petition, big deal....

[DonkeyRhubarb]

We need to go way beyond readers of this forum, whether members or not.
Unfortunately many members shy away from publicity (times full page advert anyone) We need thousands of signatures not a few hundred. The responses so far would seem to indicate many people would be onside when the true nature of this 'legislation' is explained.

what have we got to lose?

We won't get any support from joe public. In the "court of public opinion" bankruptcy would be far too lenient.

However, it looks like a good % of contractors, tax professionals, accountants might sign on principle.

What do you reckon to this rewording:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to..
Hold an independent inquiry to re-examine the retrospective legislation Section 58 Finance Act 2008

More details about your petition (1000 characters maximum):
The retrospective nature of Section 58 attracted widespread criticism right from the start.

The Chartered Institute of Taxation described it as “extreme and unjustified”, the Law Society believed it was “wrong in principle”, and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales said that “it sends out a very damaging signal about the stability of the UK tax system”.

However, what these organisations did not know, and what is alleged here, is that Parliament was systematically misled into approving the legislation.

The then Financial Secretary to the Treasury Jane Kennedy gave testimony before the Treasury Committee on 22 May 2008 which can only be described as economical with the truth. Some statements she made were untrue, others were highly misleading, and crucial facts about the case were not disclosed at the time.

Hundreds of families are now facing financial ruin as a result of Section 58. All we are asking for is an independent inquiry to investigate these allegations.

[poppy01]

Fair point but I wanted to guage whether we would get any support from people not directly affected.

If only people in the scheme signed it then it would be a hopeless cause because it would just be seen as vested interest, and there aren't enough of us to make any impact.

We need to go way beyond readers of this forum, whether members or not.
Unfortunately many members shy away from publicity (times full page advert anyone) We need thousands of signatures not a few hundred. The responses so far would seem to indicate many people would be onside when the true nature of this 'legislation' is explained.

what have we got to lose?

[Svalbaard]

I believe that these e-petitions and similar schemes have no effect whatsoever in guiding the course of ministerial and departmental thinking and that they are simply there to give the proles the illusion of inclusive government.

However, I do not support restrospective legislation so I have answered with a "oui" in response to your question.