MTM IR35 Scheme

[JaredM]

Page not found. Could you remind us please?

There's a ) at the end of the link that shouldnt be there, try : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5399998.stm

[expat]

There's a ) at the end of the link that shouldnt be there, try : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5399998.stm

Well, thanks for trying, but that's a oage about the "Alternative Secured Pension", a self-managed pension apparently only designed for the Plymouth Brethren, who are conscientiously opposed to annuities.

It was quite interesting, actually.

[JaredM]

Well, thanks for trying, but that's a oage about the "Alternative Secured Pension", a self-managed pension apparently only designed for the Plymouth Brethren, who are conscientiously opposed to annuities.

It was quite interesting, actually.

Yep, that's the one. If the government really believed in treating all faiths equally they wouldn't complain when people of one faith use legislation designed for another.

To me, it amounts to racism for them to say that if people don't follow a particular faith and use a piece of legislation then they are tax dodgers but if they follow that faith then its fine.

[expat]

Yep, that's the one. If the government really believed in treating all faiths equally they wouldn't complain when people of one faith use legislation designed for another.

To me, it amounts to racism for them to say that if people don't follow a particular faith and use a piece of legislation then they are tax dodgers but if they follow that faith then its fine.

Hmm, sorry, I don't see discrimination by faith as racism. It is not a trivial distinction: you can't choose your race, which is one of the major things that is wrong about racism.

That's leaving aside the fact that the government was not discriminating against Plymouth Brethren, it was they who discriminated against the government's offer. They could simply have not put money into annuities (I don't myself, though for other reasons); but instead, the government was persuaded to introduce a scheme specially for the Brethren (i.e. discriminate in their favour), but it is being "abused" by others, precisely because the government can not limit it to Plymouth Brethren, since that would be discrimination by religious belief.

So actually:
1. the story was about the government not discriminating by religious belief, and
2. "racism" has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Some people do cry "racism" rather too readily, I fear.

[expat]

Bollocks.

Oh FFS Zeitghost, why use 1 word when 100 would do?

[kelly123]

MTM investigations

Anyone else had a SCO Investigation letter from HMRC? Helen, have they got any further with you? Is it right that we shouldn't pay up and we'll only have to pay if the scheme is unsuccessful? thanks

[contractorbob]

MTM investigations

I made the mistake of joining a similar scheme provided by Steed Solutions ltd. I am also under investigation and know a few other people in a similar situation with MTM. I actually spoke to the HMRC tax inspector who told me that they are currently in the process of preparing test cases in order to set a precedent. It could take a very long time for these cases to be resolved resulting in very high interest charges if the decision goes in favour of HMRC. As far as I can see, the only prudent course of action is to make a payment on account to stop the accumulation of interest charges. Either that or just hope that HMRC lose their case.

Is any one else in the same situation? Does anyone know anything more about these cases? Dose anyone else have a different plan for avoiding bankruptcy?

[bananarepublic]

Retrospective tax law change

I was a member of an IOM partnership scheme for a number of years.

It now appears that the retrospective change to tax law, announced in budget note 66 WILL mean that the Revenue will seek to recover tax AND national insurance - I have a letter to this affect in front of me.

No doubt that this was an aggressive scheme, but it seems to me this behaviour from the Revenue smacks of what one would expect from a totalitarian state. No argument about the original legality of the scheme, they will just change the law arbitrarily to make sure they win. I wonder if they will levy penalties on the same basis!

[Ardesco]

I was a member of an IOM partnership scheme for a number of years.

It now appears that the retrospective change to tax law, announced in budget note 66 WILL mean that the Revenue will seek to recover tax AND national insurance - I have a letter to this affect in front of me.

No doubt that this was an aggressive scheme, but it seems to me this behaviour from the Revenue smacks of what one would expect from a totalitarian state. No argument about the original legality of the scheme, they will just change the law arbitrarily to make sure they win. I wonder if they will levy penalties on the same basis!

Welcome to the Nu Liemore version of Britain where they change legislation retrospectively to collect more tax because "It's only fair". Thanks to Nu Liemore all of us small business owners now have no idea if our current tax avoidance measures will become tax evasion measures in the next few years with a hefty tax bill to pay for the pleasure.

Retrospective legislation is wrong for many reason, yet the great unwashed keep voting this corrupt government into power. Best thing to do IMHO is emigrate and part of the long term plan for me.

[BrilloPad]

I was a member of an IOM partnership scheme for a number of years.

It now appears that the retrospective change to tax law, announced in budget note 66 WILL mean that the Revenue will seek to recover tax AND national insurance - I have a letter to this affect in front of me.

No doubt that this was an aggressive scheme, but it seems to me this behaviour from the Revenue smacks of what one would expect from a totalitarian state. No argument about the original legality of the scheme, they will just change the law arbitrarily to make sure they win. I wonder if they will levy penalties on the same basis!

whom is the letter from?