No To Retro Tax - Ongoing battle against S58 FA2008

[SantaClaus]

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

Judge Parker is on the case - I wish Bernie luck... he'll need it!

[TAF4]

This State sponsored terrorist organisation () needs to be effectively monitored by a truly independent body.
I know the country is broke but illegally shafting the wealth creators that pay the taxes is not a sustainable way forward.

For the avoidance of doubt - all Public Sector tax payers are not wealth creators and their taxation is a state discount on the wage bill.
That's you Hector.

[BrilloPad]

Judge Parker is on the case - I wish Bernie luck... he'll need it!

The one who said that Montpelier had not done enough to resolve the case - despite Montpelier trying to go to the FTTT in 2007?

[Donnie Darko]

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

Do you trust them to give you impartial advice that is in your best interests (not theirs)? Remember to some extent TAA is directed against them.

Think very carefully about this, and about who you can really trust. I'm being very serious here.

Judge Redston has given an opinion that TAA has >75% chance.

What % chance does Huitson have? Why not ask them? In the letter back in February they said they were "not over confident in the [Huitson] argument". That sounds a lot worse than 75% to me.

People need to wake up and smell the coffee.

[BrilloPad]

Do you trust them to give you impartial advice that is in your best interests (not theirs)?

Interesting comment!

Presumably Montpelier will be pleased if we win?

If we win the "George" argument, what will happen to the other Montpelier users?

[helen7]

Do you trust them to give you impartial advice that is in your best interests (not theirs)? Remember to some extent TAA is directed against them.

Think very carefully about this, and about who you can really trust. I'm being very serious here.

Judge Redston has given an opinion that TAA has >75% chance.

What % chance does Huitson have? Why not ask them? In the letter back in February they said they were "not over confident in the [Huitson] argument". That sounds a lot worse than 75% to me.

People need to wake up and smell the coffee.

That is the problem with this whole mess. We pay for professional advice; and when it turns out to be wrong the burdon falls on us. Montpellier were our tax advisers; and they gave us bad advice.

HMRC waited 6 years before finally making a decision. 6 years! Since all income was fully decalred, surely that should consitute a reasonable expectation that the tax planning was effective. And now the burdon of interest due to HMRC's delay falls on us.

The opinion might be a 75% chance of success; but this opinion holds no legal standing. If its wrong, the burdon falls on us for both the tax and the legal fees.

[Resolute B]

That is the problem with this whole mess. We pay for professional advice; and when it turns out to be wrong the burdon falls on us. Montpellier were our tax advisers; and they gave us bad advice.

HMRC waited 6 years before finally making a decision. 6 years! Since all income was fully decalred, surely that should consitute a reasonable expectation that the tax planning was effective. And now the burdon of interest due to HMRC's delay falls on us.

The opinion might be a 75% chance of success; but this opinion holds no legal standing. If its wrong, the burdon falls on us for both the tax and the legal fees.

When your current escape tunnel collapses, you dig another tunnel. It takes effort and it might also collapse. But it is essential to keep digging if you want any chance of an out.

[eek]

That is the problem with this whole mess. We pay for professional advice; and when it turns out to be wrong the burdon falls on us. Montpellier were our tax advisers; and they gave us bad advice.

HMRC waited 6 years before finally making a decision. 6 years! Since all income was fully decalred, surely that should consitute a reasonable expectation that the tax planning was effective. And now the burdon of interest due to HMRC's delay falls on us.

The opinion might be a 75% chance of success; but this opinion holds no legal standing. If its wrong, the burdon falls on us for both the tax and the legal fees.

Yep but its currently £900 to NTRT to try and avoid an HMRC bill that will be many times that or paying that HMRC bill.

You should be thankfully that NTRT have spent the time required to get to this point and thankfully that they have identified a potential escape route that looks like it could well succeed. Whether you want to use it or not is utterly irrelevant here, many people are thankful for the possible escape route and are willing to pay...

As has been pointed out in the many EBT threads when people suggest suing the people who recommended the service to them, there is little you can actually sue and even if you succeed they don't have the money required to pay everyone's tax bills. Its annoying but suing the people who sold you the scheme won't solve the mess you are in...

Only using every possible route to appeal HMRC's assessment and hoping 1 of them works will solve that problem. George seems to have found 1 new possible route. Personally (although I repeat I'm not directly involved here) you would be utterly mad not to be part of this case as it probably is your only realistic route out... However, I don't think it will be cheap or quick chances are HMRC will take it all the way if need be...

[BrilloPad]

That is the problem with this whole mess. We pay for professional advice; and when it turns out to be wrong the burdon falls on us. Montpellier were our tax advisers; and they gave us bad advice.

HMRC waited 6 years before finally making a decision. 6 years! Since all income was fully decalred, surely that should consitute a reasonable expectation that the tax planning was effective. And now the burdon of interest due to HMRC's delay falls on us.

The opinion might be a 75% chance of success; but this opinion holds no legal standing. If its wrong, the burdon falls on us for both the tax and the legal fees.

We were told that if Montpelier double taxation argument fails then the burden would fall on us. They gave us good advice at the time - just bad retrospectively!

I agree about HMRC - but it does us no good.

I agree with paragraph 3. We all have to decide if to go for it or not. I am in.

[Donnie Darko]

The opinion might be a 75% chance of success; but this opinion holds no legal standing. If its wrong, the burdon falls on us for both the tax and the legal fees.

The legal fees are already covered.

Surely "better than 75%" (TAA) is preferable to "virtually no chance" (Huitson)?

What, you don't accept that Huitson is "virtually no chance"?

Well go and ask Montpelier for a % figure and report back to us what they tell you.