No To Retro Tax - Ongoing battle against S58 FA2008

[Morlock]

If MTM have any doubts or concern with the NTRT TAA argument I would want to know about this. I have over 300k riding on this.

So, are you worried about TAA failing - or about it succeeding?
Either way, what's the worst that could happen?

APNs are arriving thick and fast and for a lot of people they cannot be paid. If MTM withdrew support, appealing these could prove very expensive for individuals.

It's not possible to appeal an APN, you can only make a written representation. One page of A4 + an envelope + a stamp. About a quid...?

[Britspud]

Sorry, think my post has been interpreted not as I intended.


Re: Watkins not losing a case against HMRC.

I hate what MTM did to us as much as everyone; but they have stuck with us whereas every other scheme promoter has abandoned there clients. I would not want to do anything that would cause them to revoke there support until all avenues are exhausted.

I stand by my comments that they ripped us off and lied to us; all for the personal gain of the greedy 'yacht gang' who laughed at us.

Re: Timing of TAA closure on Friday vs Newsletter

I think this is a genuine question. If MTM have any doubts or concern with the NTRT TAA argument I would want to know about this. I have over 300k riding on this.

I spoke to MTM on a few occasions regarding TAA and the response was that they would not have any stance on TAA; so I am surprised there is a letter being sent.

APNs are arriving thick and fast and for a lot of people they cannot be paid. If MTM withdrew support, appealing these could prove very expensive for individuals.

I really fail to see any justification for this blaming of MTM. We all knew and understood what the situation was. The problem was something unforeseen by anyone - the HMRC time machine! Hardly MTMs fault. I'm sure they were enjoying the fruits of their labours in the same way you were enjoying reducing your liabilities.

[BrilloPad]

it will be better when we have the private forum so we don't have to mince words

Firstly a big thanks to all on the steering committee.

I have to admit I am slightly worried a HMRC mole might get in! Maybe I am paranoid.

[elpinar]

if helen 7 has 300k on it she must have been on some hell of a rate ......

[BrilloPad]

Can we stop the "personal" attacks on certain posters please? Okay its not really personal. But occasionally some posters cause us to think. We might not like what they say - but we should be able to cope with that.

Personally I want to hear what Montp have to say. Then take advice from the committee.

I feel sure that Montp will still fight APNs.

We should also remember that WG reads these posts (hi WG hope you are well?). I presume that WG will not be represented on the private forum?

[elpinar]

if helen 7 has 300k on it she must have been on some hell of a rate ......

thats not an attack ... im genuinely in awe if she had a day rate that got her to there !!! Its an observation

[Britspud]

thats not an attack ... im genuinely in awe if she had a day rate that got her to there !!! Its an observation

It's not that hard to imagine. If she's been on the scheme since the early days and was pulling in 500 quid a day (quite a common rate in my experience), her annual (unavoided) tax bill would have been 40k per year. Those first years accumulated interest are 40-60%. Hey presto. 300k in less than 5 years...and still growing.

[Resolute B]

Message from NTRT

The test case we selected for the FTT has received individual correspondence from Montpelier setting out their issues with TAA.

As you know we have a comprehensive opinion from experienced FTT Judge Anne Redston which assesses the chances of success of TAA as better than 75%.

We have passed the Montpelier concerns to CCW, and their initial feedback has been totally reassuring. However, as a belt & braces, we have asked CCW to instruct Anne to review it. We will pass on her opinion as soon as we have it.

Due to the large number of applications it has taken longer than anticipated to grant access to the private forum. We want to be sure that we only allow people in who are bona fide victims of BN66/S58.

We aim to start activating the first batch of accounts later today.

(ps. it will be better when we have the private forum so we don't have to mince words )

I see this as a positive rather than something to get edgy about.

[Scotty15]

F1 boss Ecclestone in legal action against HMRC

Likewise, fed up with the constant bickering

So here is an interesting article to read, and to draw our attention to who our fight is with! HMRC lest you forget.

FORMULA ONE OWNER Bernie Ecclestone is taking legal action against the taxman and a potential £1bn bill after a dispute over a family trust was re-opened.

Three separate lawsuits were filed by Ecclestone with the High Court as he seeks to block the tax bill, which was issued following HMRC's decision to abandon a deal agreed in 2008, the Independent reports.

That agreement was reached following a nine-year investigation into F1's tax affairs. The 1997 transfer of shares in the motorsport company to his Croatian then-wife Slavica, who placed them in a Liechtenstein-based trust called Bambino, triggered the investigation.

Slavica and Ecclestone's daughters Tamara and Petra were the trust's beneficiaries. HMRC examined whether the transfer of shares to the trust had breached anti-avoidance rules and in 2008 it concluded they had not.

Yet in December 2014, HMRC told Ecclestone that it had rescinded the settlement agreement, claiming it had been "misled" and that it had relied on false representations. In all, the bill covering 13 years of income earned by the trust totalled £674m, with £349m of interest on top and the possibility of further penalty charges.

Ecclestone strongly denies any control over the trust and his lawyers claim no "rational reason" for scrapping the original 2008 agreement has been put forward by HMRC.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Ecclestone strongly denies any control over the trust and his lawyers claim no "rational reason" for scrapping the original 2008 agreement has been put forward by HMRC.

They should know you can't expect "rational reason" from HMRC.