MTM IR35 Scheme

[tim123]

Isn't their website illegal? No indication of company/partnership number & registered address?

No!

The requirement is for the website to contain a contact address (which it does).

And how can there be a requirement for a web site to contain an 'official number' for entities for which such a number doesn't exist?

tim

[NotAllThere]

...
And how can there be a requirement for a web site to contain an 'official number' for entities for which such a number doesn't exist?

Easy. Make it a requirement for entities for which such a number DOES exist to have it on their website.

The legislation, IIRC, at first seemed to indicate that where the owner of a website was a ltdco, then the company number was legally required. I do know there was a lot of discussion about it. The conclusion was, however, again IIRC, that it wasn't needed.

[IR35 Avoider]

Found out who the vulture of that website is.. simply by using the "Who Is" website.

http://www.warr.co.uk/index.htm

Funny thing is that this vulture company is based very near to where the HMRC Special Compliance Office is based. Seems like they have some pals at HMRC who are probably drinking buddies... Must be slime.. why would they try to hide their names if they didn't have anything to hide!

The story is designed to scare people.

I don't think we should be to rude - Tim Warr has been a contractor accountant for a very long time, used to write useful articles in "Freelance Informer", for those who remember it. He wrote an article in something like 1995 pointing out the pontential danger from S660a. If he does have contacts at SCO, that is a good thing. It makes it easier for him to negotiate a settlement, if that's what the contractor wants.

[futurecat]

What Can You Do To Help!

Folks.

The status of the Finance Bill 2008 can be seen using this webpage.

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/...8/finance.html

As you can see it is now moving along and will eventually become law. The key stages are those called "Comm" and "PP" which allow some form of debate and amendments to be made. If any changes can be made they are likely to be as a result of House of Commons debate.

What can we do? Well we can all write to our MP's to voice our concerns. The more people that write.. the more likley that we can force some kind of change. Writing to your MP is very easy and takes no more than 5 minutes! Just enter your PostCode in the Website below and you will be able to see who your local MP is and send an email instantly.

WWW.WRITETOTHEM.COM

These people are paid to represent us and so do not be cynical about this process. Below is a sample letter for you to use.

"

Dear MP,


Regarding Budget Note 66 AND the 2008 Finance Bill

I am writing to you regarding the 2008 Finance Bill which is currently being discussed in the House Of Commons. In particular I would like to draw your attention to Page 27 of Volume I of the Bill, which relates to "Double Taxation Arrangements".

The bill contains amendments which clarify the scope of existing "Double Taxation" law, which currently is ambiguous in many respects. However the proposed 2008 bill also contains a retrospective element which is incredibly rare for a piece of legislation. This retrospective element would see many innocent self employed individuals being mercilessly targeted by the HMRC.

Although I support changes in the law to clarify existing legislation, introducing a retrospective element is likely to result in blatant abuse of the tax laws by HMRC, especially as the existing laws were unclear to begin with.

Being a loyal voter for several years, I really would appreciate your support in forcing an amendment to this bill during its current reading so as to exclude this retrospective element which is grossly unfair



Yours faithfully


JOE BLOGGS

"


I for one am also going to write to as many Lords as possible, using the same website. Realistically though the House of Commons is our best bet, as the house of Lords is pretty toothless.

Please can you propogate this email on other message boards relating to this subject.

[BrilloPad]

I don't think we should be to rude - Tim Warr has been a contractor accountant for a very long time, used to write useful articles in "Freelance Informer", for those who remember it. He wrote an article in something like 1995 pointing out the pontential danger from S660a. If he does have contacts at SCO, that is a good thing. It makes it easier for him to negotiate a settlement, if that's what the contractor wants.

Maybe he did good things in the past and has good contacts - but running scare stories is not really cricket.

On the other hand, it is so obviously made up that it would only lure the very stupid.

I do wonder if he meant Montpelier or another IOM company?

[Bradley]

Not retrospective

Maybe he did good things in the past and has good contacts - but running scare stories is not really cricket.

On the other hand, it is so obviously made up that it would only lure the very stupid.

I do wonder if he meant Montpelier or another IOM company?

If it stops anyone else using these schemes then he's done everyone a favour. The Revenue always made it clear after Padmore http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/ithma...39_ITH1660.htm that they would act retrospectively to stamp out this type of abuse. What happened was that the people promoting these schemes decided that the government would turn a blind eye and carried on regardless. They should have made it plain that BN66 could and probably would happen.

If you want someone to blame, blame the promoters.

[BrilloPad]

If it stops anyone else using these schemes then he's done everyone a favour. The Revenue always made it clear after Padmore http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/ithma...39_ITH1660.htm that they would act retrospectively to stamp out this type of abuse. What happened was that the people promoting these schemes decided that the government would turn a blind eye and carried on regardless. They should have made it plain that BN66 could and probably would happen.

If you want someone to blame, blame the promoters.

"this type of abuse" - can you define that?

you are not qualified to comment on "these schemes" - very few are. So far HMRC not laid a glove on montpelier - HMRC should have closed it and not started the bully boy tactics.

Bradley - do you work for HMRC?

[Bradley]

Abus(iv)e

"this type of abuse" - can you define that?

you are not qualified to comment on "these schemes" - very few are. So far HMRC not laid a glove on montpelier - HMRC should have closed it and not started the bully boy tactics.

Bradley - do you work for HMRC?

It's abuse because it was clear 20 years ago that this type of thing wouldn't work. You don't need to resort to this sort of thing to avoid UK tax. You could, for example, have lived in the Isle of Man and restricted days in the UK.

Funnily enough you seem to be perfectly comfortable making endless comment despite your lack of qualification .....

[BrilloPad]

It's abuse because it was clear 20 years ago that this type of thing wouldn't work. You don't need to resort to this sort of thing to avoid UK tax. You could, for example, have lived in the Isle of Man and restricted days in the UK.

Funnily enough you seem to be perfectly comfortable making endless comment despite your lack of qualification .....

But all I have said is that I feel the scheme is right for me - it is not for everyone. On the other hand you seem to want everyone to do things YOUR way. I am interested to hear about your experience of these type of scheme - but you seem to endlessly bank on about getting angry with scheme provider.

If you are not HMRC then maybe you are Tim Warr?

Maybe I should have listened to NotAllThere?

http://forums.contractoruk.com/499942-post48.html

[NotAllThere]

...On the other hand, it is so obviously made up that it would only lure the very stupid...

For a moment there I thought you were referring to the offerings of Montpelier or another IOM company.