Jump to content

Second reply from my MP re: HMRC

gogzy

By gogzy
in Jimmy Bell's Kitroom

 Share

Recommended Posts

Spectre

Spectre 1,663

Posted
Posted

This is why I keep saying we're wasting our time with the petition.

This one letter is worth more than the 39,000 signatures we've collected!

Writing to MPs is the way forward.

Agreed, I find it utterly disgraceful that a crime appears to ahve been committed and yet it requires 100,000 members of the public to sign a petition in order to get anyone to actually talk about it. Imagine if all cries were dealt with in the same way, "Help, i've been burgled" "Alright, just get 100,000 of your pals to tell us about it and we might act"

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

BlueAvenger

BlueAvenger 10,237

Posted
Posted

Well done mate

I wrote to my local MP twice and have not received a reply

I wrote to David Gauke MP and got the standard reply from HMRC so I sent a second email.

I also wrote to Salmond and got the standard Scottish Government reply from one of his sidekicks.

I am waiting on a reply from Shona Robison regarding the selection process for the posts of Chief Executive of the SFA and Chief Executive of the SPL

Ive been writing more than JK Rowling !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
BEARGER

BEARGER 339

Posted
Posted

Wrote to a few MP's including my own (Gemma Doyle!!). Got a note from her saying she had received my request, no answer yet. Got a reply from Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) he said he has already raised the subject and will send me a copy of the ministers response. Assume some Bear must have contacted him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Blue and True

Blue and True 311

Posted
Posted

Please see the reply I received from Our Jo.

Unfortunately she attached a Pdf of the reply she got from The Treasury and I wasn not happy with it at all.

I have sent another mail to Jo and this gives you gist of what nonsense I received from The Treasury.

Mr *******

Thank you very much for your email regarding the situation at Rangers Football Club. I do remember meeting you when I visited ****.

I can appreciate why so many people are concerned about what happened to Rangers. As you know, Murray Park is in my constituency and the company’s collapse affected a large number of local people and businesses.

You are correct that the First Tier Tribunal ruled in Rangers’ favour in November, although HMRC is seeking leave to appeal this ruling.

I am aware of the concerns held by a number of people about alleged leaks from HMRC. Those allegations are obviously very serious. I have actually written to the Treasury about this and the Minister’s response is attached for your information. HMRC does not comment on alleged leaks but I would imagine that internal enquiries have been ongoing to determine whether there is any truth to them. In order to confirm this, I’ve written back to the Minister to ask for a more detailed explanation of what action has been taken in relation to these allegations.

Many thanks again and if I can be of further assistance on this or any other matter, please feel free to get back in touch.

Yours sincerely,

Jo Swinson MP

Dear Ms Swinson,

Thank you very much for the detailed response.

I do however have some points to make in regards to the reply you received from HM Treasury.

Mr. G***** goes to some lengths in his description of the position HMRC find themselves in with regards to EBTs and their use.

He also feels it necessary to advise on the reasons for the company going in to administration.

This however is not what was asked, and I, and I’m sure everyone who has taken an interest is fully aware of the facts stated in this regards.

He also makes 2 statements.

1/ ‘HMRC cannot comment on the affairs of any business or individual due its legal obligations of confidentiality’

Again I would emphasize that this is simply stating the obvious and at no point in my communication has information as such been requested.

Where he does have it correct is that they do have a ‘legal obligation’ to protect the confidentiality of the ‘individual’ and as such I would have expected at least some concern and some details on any actions planned over the information that has found its self in the public domain.

2/ ‘We do not comment on speculation about breeches of confidentiality’

Once again, no such request was made.

However there is ‘speculation’ and I would have thought at least some acknowledgement of such, coupled with a little contrition may have been forthcoming.

I look forward to hearing confirmation that HMRC (perhaps via your self) are having either a private or public investigation in to these alleged breeches of confidentiality.

Please accept my apologies for the tone of the mail as this is in no way directed at your self and I am deeply grateful for the time and effort you have given this matter.

Kind Regards.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Blue and True

Blue and True 311

Posted
Posted

Just received some further feedback from Ms Swinson.

I have copied the correspondence to date with the latest email at the bottom.

I have to say I am impressed with her attitude and may even vote for her at the next election.

Please see the reply I received from Our Jo.

Unfortunately she attached a Pdf of the reply she got from The Treasury and I wasn not happy with it at all.

I have sent another mail to Jo and this gives you gist of what nonsense I received from The Treasury.

Mr *******

Thank you very much for your email regarding the situation at Rangers Football Club. I do remember meeting you when I visited ****.

I can appreciate why so many people are concerned about what happened to Rangers. As you know, Murray Park is in my constituency and the company’s collapse affected a large number of local people and businesses.

You are correct that the First Tier Tribunal ruled in Rangers’ favour in November, although HMRC is seeking leave to appeal this ruling.

I am aware of the concerns held by a number of people about alleged leaks from HMRC. Those allegations are obviously very serious. I have actually written to the Treasury about this and the Minister’s response is attached for your information. HMRC does not comment on alleged leaks but I would imagine that internal enquiries have been ongoing to determine whether there is any truth to them. In order to confirm this, I’ve written back to the Minister to ask for a more detailed explanation of what action has been taken in relation to these allegations.

Many thanks again and if I can be of further assistance on this or any other matter, please feel free to get back in touch.

Yours sincerely,

Jo Swinson MP

Dear Ms Swinson,

Thank you very much for the detailed response.

I do however have some points to make in regards to the reply you received from HM Treasury.

Mr. G***** goes to some lengths in his description of the position HMRC find themselves in with regards to EBTs and their use.

He also feels it necessary to advise on the reasons for the company going in to administration.

This however is not what was asked, and I, and I’m sure everyone who has taken an interest is fully aware of the facts stated in this regards.

He also makes 2 statements.

1/ ‘HMRC cannot comment on the affairs of any business or individual due its legal obligations of confidentiality’

Again I would emphasize that this is simply stating the obvious and at no point in my communication has information as such been requested.

Where he does have it correct is that they do have a ‘legal obligation’ to protect the confidentiality of the ‘individual’ and as such I would have expected at least some concern and some details on any actions planned over the information that has found its self in the public domain.

2/ ‘We do not comment on speculation about breeches of confidentiality’

Once again, no such request was made.

However there is ‘speculation’ and I would have thought at least some acknowledgement of such, coupled with a little contrition may have been forthcoming.

I look forward to hearing confirmation that HMRC (perhaps via your self) are having either a private or public investigation in to these alleged breeches of confidentiality.

Please accept my apologies for the tone of the mail as this is in no way directed at your self and I am deeply grateful for the time and effort you have given this matter.

Kind Regards.

Dear********

Thank you very much for your further email.

I appreciate your comments about the Minister’s response. As I say, I’ve written back to the Minister to ask for more information on any internal investigations into alleged leaks from HMRC. This is a real concern to some people so I’m keen to get further details.

Many thanks again and I will of course contact you when I have a further response. In the meantime, if I can be of further assistance on this or any other matter, please feel free to get back in touch.

Yours sincerely,

Jo Swinson MP

Link to post
Share on other sites
Blue and True

Blue and True 311

Posted
Posted

And Ive just replied...

Thank You Ms Swinson,

I look forward to receiving your feedback.

It is also worth noting that HMRC have been granted leave to appeal on this case.

They will be using both my money and yours in pursuit of a ‘point of principle’ as the company in question is in the process of being liquidated.

If press reports are to be believed HMRC have to date spent close to 5 million pounds on something which will recoup the tax payer (that’s me and you again) something very close to nothing yet they see fit to continue.

Given the current economic situation in the country I’m sure there are better ways of using tax payers’ money.

Once again may I thank you for your efforts on this issue.

Kind Regards.

Link to post
Share on other sites
72barca

72barca 1,788

Posted
Posted

Gogzy and Blue and True, good motivation and good tenacity in your correspondence. Well done. For the others who are about to write to their MPs I have included a couple of links that you may or may not find useful. These are both issued by HMRC and in my opinion show HMRC in a bad position.

http://www.tax-news....s____42064.html

HMRC To 'Name And Shame' Tax Evaders

by Robert Lee, Tax-News.com, London

05 March 2010

Taxpayers and companies who deliberately evade taxes in the UK face having their name, address and details of their evasion made public after new legislation was put into force on March 3.

HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) will be able to publish names and details of individuals and companies who are caught dodging their taxes from April 1, 2010, when section 94 of the Finance Act 2009 comes into force.

Stephen Timms, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, said: “It is only right that people pay their fair share of tax, which supports vital public services. We know that law-abiding taxpayers will want to see the results of HMRC’s investigations into tax cheats.

He added: “This new approach should make people think again about trying to get away with tax fraud. As well as having to pay the tax, interest on the tax, plus penalties of up to 100% of the tax lost, they also now risk being identified publicly. “We are only targeting deliberate tax evaders. So if you know that you have not paid the right tax, and you want to avoid being named, contact HMRC right away to set things straight.”

It is planned that names will be published on HMRC’s website. Because this measure will only be applied for periods starting from April 1, 2010, it is not expected that any names will be published before the first half of 2011.

Taxpayers who may be named and shamed are those who have deliberately evaded tax of more than GBP25,000 in total.

A similar scheme currently operates in the Republic of Ireland, and the UK government hopes that 'naming and shaming' will act as an additional deterrent in its enforcement arsenal to reduce tax evasion. However, one tax expert warns that businesses may stand to lose substantially more from having their name emblazoned on HMRC's defaulters' page than would be the case if just a financial penalty was imposed.

"Being named publicly in this way could be likened to 'ASBOs for tax evaders' causing a lot of damage to the individual's personal and commercial reputation," commented Stephen Camm, tax partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers.

"It may a seem insensitive to 'name and shame' in this way, but will have a bigger impact for some than a straight-forward financial penalty, demolishing the facade of respectability that they would have previously maintained," he cautioned.

IF someone within HMRC did in fact leak Rangers details on the big tax case, they have committed a criminal offence under the Finance Act 2009, since if you look at the second bolded line Rangers have never been proven to have deliberately evaded tax.

Secondly,

http://www.hmrc.gov....ews/rangers.htm

[businesses & corporations]

[employers]

[individuals & employees]

What's New - latest news from HMRC

Statement on Rangers Football Club

"A liquidation provides the best opportunity to protect taxpayers, by allowing the potential investigation and pursuit of possible claims against those responsible for the company’s financial affairs in recent years. A CVA would restrict the scope of such action. Moreover the liquidation route does not prejudice the proposed sale of the club. This sale can take place either through a CVA or a liquidation.

So the sale is not being undermined, it simply takes a different route. Liquidation will enable a sale of the football assets to be made to a new company, thereby ensuring that football will continue at Ibrox. It also means that the new company will be free from claims or litigation in a way which would not be achievable with a CVA. Rangers can make a fresh start."

The first bolded part indicates that they do not wish to pursue Rangers but rather individuals they hold responsible. Possibly Whyte? The second bolded part indicates that they already know that they can NOT recover any money from Charles Green, so why pursue an appeal against Rangers' appeal if it is not for an ulterior motive to set a precedent for the future and is this not injurious to Rangers as a business in the interim?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...