MTM IR35 Scheme

[Ivor1]

I know someone as well who was on MTM scheme owes around £120k plus interest and penalties, apperently some people have just paid up, but mate hasnt. Sometimes I think its in the IR interest to drag it out with increasing interest and penalties. My mate is just going to declare bankruptcy if he has to pay, has transferred all his assets into other family memeber names.

[tim123]

I know someone as well who was on MTM scheme owes around £120k plus interest and penalties, apperently some people have just paid up, but mate hasnt. Sometimes I think its in the IR interest to drag it out with increasing interest and penalties. My mate is just going to declare bankruptcy if he has to pay, has transferred all his assets into other family memeber names.

The revenue have no interest in 'dragging it out'. The interest is basically revenue neutral and penalties will only go up because of the actions of the tax payer.

Transferring assets before an impending bankruptcy doesn't work. The law allows for the transfer to be undone and the asset placed back into the hands of the bankruptee.

And there is the little matter of, if the revenue think that this is Evasion, a criminal charge. The revenue's normal line on this is, you pay the money that we think you owe and we won't prosecute, don't pay the money and we will. Um, minus 100K or five years in pokey, I know which I'd choose.

tim

[JaredM]

Revenue neutral my a**e!

The revenue have no interest in 'dragging it out'. The interest is basically revenue neutral and penalties will only go up because of the actions of the tax payer.

I'm sorry but I've seen first hand what 'revenue neutral' means. While the policy at the top may be that, the guys doing the work have targets to meet and they will resort to the normal fun and games that any worker will resort to in order to meet targets.

- The 'revenue neutral' Revenue also have a miraculous habit of re-interpreting regulations and going back on established guidance.

- The 'revenue neutral' Revenue are itching to class those who take legal steps to minimise their tax liabilities as baby eating scum of the Earth who will bring this country to ruin, increase global warming, cause terrorism, and all manner of other evils.

- The 'revenue neutral' Revenue will punish those who make genuine and obviously honest errors with penalties; not just those that go out of their way to hoodwink Hector.

- The 'revenue neutral' Revenue will assume you've messed up your tax calculations for previous years by default if they spot an error in a given year. Unless YOU can prove otherwise, they assume you owe them back-taxes for mistakes you may not have made. Oh and penalties too!

- The 'revenue neutral' Revenue will spend £10k worth of public money to chas £100 of unpaid tax.

- The 'revenue neutral' Revenue won't ever tell you if a particular form of tax planning is permissible as legitimate 'tax avoidance' in advance. Hmm, I wonder why that is, must be because they're 'revenue neutral'!

- The 'revenue neutral' Revenue are at worst racist (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5399998.stm).

- The 'revenue neutral' Revenue are intimidating and will word all letters with veiled threats and assumptions that ALWAYS favour themselves more heavily than the tax-payer.

I really respect a lot of the work the revnue does, but let's not pretend for one minute the friendly public face they try to portray is anthing more than a really poor mask.

*rant over*

[tim123]

*rant over*

Maybe, but I really don't see what all of thats got to do with my comment about interest being revenue neutral, which it is. If you owe the revenue 100K and there is a delay in paying it to them by six months, you will earn six months interest on it (or avoid six months interest on your overdraft) and they will lose six months interest on it.

So by adding interest to the sum owed, all they do is transfer the interest that you earnt, (but shouldn't have) to the party who shoudl have earnt it, i.e them.

tim

[JaredM]

Maybe, but I really don't see what all of thats got to do with my comment about interest being revenue neutral, which it is. If you owe the revenue 100K and there is a delay in paying it to them by six months, you will earn six months interest on it (or avoid six months interest on your overdraft) and they will lose six months interest on it.

So by adding interest to the sum owed, all they do is transfer the interest that you earnt, (but shouldn't have) to the party who shoudl have earnt it, i.e them.

tim

Except their interest rate is... 8% if I'm not mistaken? Please tell me where I can earn anywhere near that amount of interest. In my opinion the revenue profit from this to the tune of around 3%.

Although I got carried away, my original point also mentioned the penalties. Levied if you made an honest mistake or not. Levied if you sought professional advice or not. Levied even if you asked Hector for advice. How can this be and the revenue are still 'revenue neutral'?

[ASB]

Maybe, but I really don't see what all of thats got to do with my comment about interest being revenue neutral, which it is. If you owe the revenue 100K and there is a delay in paying it to them by six months, you will earn six months interest on it (or avoid six months interest on your overdraft) and they will lose six months interest on it.

So by adding interest to the sum owed, all they do is transfer the interest that you earnt, (but shouldn't have) to the party who shoudl have earnt it, i.e them.

tim

Quite true. However the interest rates on late payment of IT is now 7.5% and 6% on CT. The repayment rates are now 3.0% and 2.75% respectively.

What I found particularly galling was that when investigated it took 3 years to settle, and was setlled at broadly the amount I conceeded (with some reluctance) was due at the outset of the investigation. At the time the official rate was 8,5% so it cost me about 25% extra - purely because of their delays - allowing for the credit interest I received I was still about 15% out of pocket.

[Bernard]

Reply from MTM / Montpelier

Hi

I am Bernard O'Kelly, MD of Montpelier Tax Planning (Isle of Man) Limited formerly known as MTM Tax Consultants Ltd.

We do not have a new "scheme". The tax planning which we have been marketing for a number of years continues to be marketed by us.

[ChimpMaster]

Hi

I am Bernard O'Kelly, MD of Montpelier Tax Planning (Isle of Man) Limited formerly known as MTM Tax Consultants Ltd.

We do not have a new "scheme". The tax planning which we have been marketing for a number of years continues to be marketed by us.

Welcome, Bernard.

So is MTM dead and has MTP taken over?

What can you add to this conversation regarding the tax implications of your plan? Is it really fool-proof? Where does the burden of liability lie? How are you different from the numerous other offshore loan companies - Winston etc.?

[fridge]

Welcome, Bernard.

So is MTM dead and has MTP taken over?

What can you add to this conversation regarding the tax implications of your plan? Is it really fool-proof? Where does the burden of liability lie? How are you different from the numerous other offshore loan companies - Winston etc.?

As far as i see all off shore schemes are tax evasion and should have revenue approval and the only people who suffer are the money grabing fools who think they can make a quike $. The likes of Bernard and his/her like have nothing to worry about, why should they as they are raking in the money and living off it very nicely thank you then disappear.

[Bernard]

Welcome, Bernard.

So is MTM dead and has MTP taken over?

What can you add to this conversation regarding the tax implications of your plan? Is it really fool-proof? Where does the burden of liability lie? How are you different from the numerous other offshore loan companies - Winston etc.?

The change from MTM to Montpelier is only a change of name - it is the same company.

I don't think this is the forum for me to discuss the merits of our tax planning. If you are interested in engaging our services, I would be happy to discuss it with you directly. I will not comment on what others do other than to say that we are not an offshore loan company.

Bernard