MTM IR35 Scheme

[Bradley]

Not Retrospective

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!

The Conservative government made it clear in 1987 that they would introduce retrospective legislation in this area if someone tried to avoid tax in this way. Sounds like your advisors didn't advise you of this. I'd be getting angry with them if I were you.

[helen7]

Got a letter from MTM which states that the tax planning IS and always has been perfectly legal......in there opinion. They are continuing to offer the tax planning despite the recent budget changes.

They have said that they will challenge in court any attempt to retrospectively make changes as a breach of the Human Rights Act.

Anybody know of any precedent set in regards to applying retrospective legislation.

[Ardesco]

Got a letter from MTM which states that the tax planning IS and always has been perfectly legal......in there opinion. They are continuing to offer the tax planning despite the recent budget changes.

They have said that they will challenge in court any attempt to retrospectively make changes as a breach of the Human Rights Act.

Anybody know of any precedent set in regards to applying retrospective legislation.

I wouldn't hold your breath. A couple of speeding cases went to the ECHR last year with an argument that forcing you to admit liability to a crime or be fined was a breach of human rights (which it clearly is) but the ECHR decided to side with the UK Government.

I would expect the same to happen in a case like this.

[malvolio]

I wouldn't hold your breath. A couple of speeding cases went to the ECHR last year with an argument that forcing you to admit liability to a crime or be fined was a breach of human rights (which it clearly is) but the ECHR decided to side with the UK Government.

I would expect the same to happen in a case like this.

You might also remember that the original PCG-led challenge to the whole idea of IR35 was ruled to be outside the scope of the ECHR.

[BrilloPad]

I'd be getting angry with them if I were you.

You are quite entiltled to use whatever scheme you want. But you should not be telling people how to behave.

Different people have a different risk attitude. Personally I think MTM is a no-brainer - but I understand it is not for everyone.

[Bradley]

The point is this ...

You are quite entiltled to use whatever scheme you want. But you should not be telling people how to behave.

Different people have a different risk attitude. Personally I think MTM is a no-brainer - but I understand it is not for everyone.

I think that the government have acted entirely fairly here. There just doing what is right. All should pay their fair share of tax after all.

[NotAllThere]

I think that the government have acted entirely fairly here. There just doing what is right. All should pay their fair share of tax after all.

Don't feed the troll.

[Bradley]

Sorry - couldn't resist

Don't feed the troll.

[BrilloPad]

I think that the government have acted entirely fairly here. There just doing what is right. All should pay their fair share of tax after all.

I thought we agreed to discuss that on a seperate thread in general? To keep this thread "clean". Do you want to resureect that or shall I?

[Emigre]

I joined the MTM scheme in late 2003. I have apparently been under investigation since 2003/04. I have received one letter per year from Hector during this time, keeping the investigation open. I have not received a single question from them in 4 years! I too received the latest letter from HMRC over Easter.

BN66 attempts to apply retrospective legislation back to 1987 and beyond! HMRC have done nothing to challenge the scheme in the Courts. The wording in Hector's letter is intriguing..."In the Budget the Government announced proposals to introduce legislation to retrospectively put it beyond doubt that claims such as yours are invalid".

Amongst other things, this appears to be a blatant attempt to usurp our rights to due legal process.

If these sorts of proposals become law then I guess we should submit revised SA returns for each year using whatever scheme we want to use having the benefit of hindsight also?

Emigre