Montpelier DTA scheme bulletin

[HelenBuBa]

Dates in Follower Notice

Hi All
I am new to the forum. I was part of the Montpelier scheme for 2004-5 and 2005-6 and issued an APN 16th December 2016 (actually arrived Christmas Eve - oh the joy!) I think I understand the current situation from reading through the thread, and from the information I have received from Montpelier, that they have run out of legal options after the ruling on the 9th February and it looks like I will have to pay the money HMRC is requesting. There are some legal options still being investigated but they don't sound likely to succeed. I have contacted Dawn again today, as she said they would be sending me a LoR to send to HMRC in response to the APN, prior to the payment due date I have, and I am currently waiting for a response.

Some questions if anyone can help / has an opinion on them that could help me?
1. Reading the follower notice I note the date of the ruling in Huitson was 3rd September 2015. It later says that the decision became final on 23rd January 2016 when the time limit to appeal to the Upper Tribunal expired. Then during the later section "What to do if you disagree with this follower notice" there is an option of "if this notice was given after the later of; 12 months from the date of the ruling; or 12 months from the date the appeal was made". As there was no appeal could I make the case that the date of the ruling was 3rd September 2015 and thus giving me notice on the 16th December 2016 was over a year later and this invalidates the follower notice? Or will HMRC just come back and say it is 23rd January so they are fine as it was within a year.

2. Has anyone that has paid managed to agree a payment schedule with HMRC or is only the full amount acceptable?

3. Since Montpelier failed to submit the appeal within the time limit to the Upper Tribunal has anyone received any explanation of how this happened and do we have any come back against Montpelier for failing in this duty?

Sorry if all of these have been covered earlier in the thread - I have done a lot of reading today but might have missed someone already covering these points.

Thanks

[stonehenge]

3. Since Montpelier failed to submit the appeal within the time limit to the Upper Tribunal has anyone received any explanation of how this happened

I've asked but they won't even acknowledge any failing on their part.

The recent letter they sent out didn't even mention that they left it too late to appeal.

[phileds]

In my opinion - delay. Send in the LoR. If that gets rejected pay at that point. You never know what may turn up.

Thanks matey. I'll see if I'm still in MP's good books and if they'll send me a LoR - I refused to pay the invoice they sent out last year, so perhaps that's the end of it...

And on a side note, I wouldn't mind knowing how the TAA argument is progressing, would be nice to hear if HMRC are on the back foot for once.

[BrilloPad]

Well thank you for your response. I think I'm right in saying that it was meant to be delivered with a condescending tone. It was certainly hard to interpret otherwise.

It's a shame you appear to have made the assumption that it was as easy for me o join NTRT as it was for others but I assure you that is not the case. I cannot discuss the details on that, so don't ask.

My relationship with MP is almost certainly very different --and very much more complex-- than any client/MP relationship I have seen voiced in these forums over the years, and as such the path to joining NTRT was sadly not open to me until mid-last year.

But it's good that you got to have your little dig. Well done you.

AS you are not clear what help you are looking for, are you surprised?

Which MP scheme were you in? Have you received FNs/APNs from HMRC? Can you afford to pay them?

[BrilloPad]

Hi All
I am new to the forum. I was part of the Montpelier scheme for 2004-5 and 2005-6 and issued an APN 16th December 2016 (actually arrived Christmas Eve - oh the joy!) I think I understand the current situation from reading through the thread, and from the information I have received from Montpelier, that they have run out of legal options after the ruling on the 9th February and it looks like I will have to pay the money HMRC is requesting. There are some legal options still being investigated but they don't sound likely to succeed. I have contacted Dawn again today, as she said they would be sending me a LoR to send to HMRC in response to the APN, prior to the payment due date I have, and I am currently waiting for a response.

Some questions if anyone can help / has an opinion on them that could help me?
1. Reading the follower notice I note the date of the ruling in Huitson was 3rd September 2015. It later says that the decision became final on 23rd January 2016 when the time limit to appeal to the Upper Tribunal expired. Then during the later section "What to do if you disagree with this follower notice" there is an option of "if this notice was given after the later of; 12 months from the date of the ruling; or 12 months from the date the appeal was made". As there was no appeal could I make the case that the date of the ruling was 3rd September 2015 and thus giving me notice on the 16th December 2016 was over a year later and this invalidates the follower notice? Or will HMRC just come back and say it is 23rd January so they are fine as it was within a year.

2. Has anyone that has paid managed to agree a payment schedule with HMRC or is only the full amount acceptable?

3. Since Montpelier failed to submit the appeal within the time limit to the Upper Tribunal has anyone received any explanation of how this happened and do we have any come back against Montpelier for failing in this duty?

Sorry if all of these have been covered earlier in the thread - I have done a lot of reading today but might have missed someone already covering these points.

Thanks

1. THe date was 23rd of January. If not, it would be covered in the LoR.

2. I have not heard of anyone agreeing a payment schedule. Technically it is possible - they will usually give you 3 years. But the full amount must be paid.

3. The verdict of the oral hearing did cover how it happened. MP lost. Your chances of getting come back are incredibly slim.

I will also PM you.

[administrator]

I will also PM you.

PM rights granted.

[helen7]

I spoke to 3 separate people that have settled. Each of them said they 'got a deal' but it wasn't that great. They wouldn't disclose what it was.

Anybody else know anyone that has settled and got a deal?

[lucozade]

Well thank you for your response. I think I'm right in saying that it was meant to be delivered with a condescending tone. It was certainly hard to interpret otherwise.

It's a shame you appear to have made the assumption that it was as easy for me o join NTRT as it was for others but I assure you that is not the case. I cannot discuss the details on that, so don't ask.

My relationship with MP is almost certainly very different --and very much more complex-- than any client/MP relationship I have seen voiced in these forums over the years, and as such the path to joining NTRT was sadly not open to me until mid-last year.

But it's good that you got to have your little dig. Well done you.

Glad you picked up on my 100% condescending tone.

I couldn't give two hoots about your circumstances. \/

[helen7]

nothing to see here. Move along.

[elpinar]

I spoke to 3 separate people that have settled. Each of them said they 'got a deal' but it wasn't that great. They wouldn't disclose what it was.

Anybody else know anyone that has settled and got a deal?

i got told very very clearly by Mr Lamb ...no deals AT ALL