MTM IR35 Scheme

[Bradley]

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

I'm not HMRC or Tim Warr and I resent the implication that I'm only saying what I'm saying because I've got a vested interest. What I've said may actually help if you can be bothered reading to the end of this comment.

you seem to want everyone to do things YOUR way

Are you Kevin the teenager?

Why don't you just accept that I've got my point of view and you've got yours? It's not about what's right and wrong. I'll take NotAllThere's advice regarding you and not respond to your comments any more; hopefully you'll return the courtesy.

The point about going on about the providers is as follows. If you can establish that the promoter knew about the possibility of retrospective legislation being introduced but didn't tell you then you have at least a remote possibility of suing them for any loss because there's been inadequate duty of care shown. In addition to that, under the new HMRC penalties regime, it means that you have a chance of getting no penalties because you acted reasonably. Both of those things could ultimately save YOU money. No need to thank me.

[Likely]

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?

The story described in the article is a possibility that we are already aware of.

We still don't know whether tax will be collected retrospectively.

Why is everyone paying so much attention to this article ? We should keep on looking around for developments...

[gadgetman]

Not that I have any personal interest in any of this but the one thing in the article that I found interesting is the statement about it clarifying existing legislation.

I can see the argument against introducing new legislation and applying it retrospectively but a clarification of existing legislation must surely be a different thing.

The story described in the article is a possibility that we are already aware of.

We still don't know whether tax will be collected retrospectively.

Why is everyone paying so much attention to this article ? We should keep on looking around for developments...

[cailin maith]

Not that I have any personal interest in any of this but the one thing in the article that I found interesting is the statement about it clarifying existing legislation.

I can see the argument against introducing new legislation and applying it retrospectively but a clarification of existing legislation must surely be a different thing.

I think its all about interpretation, if the IR have to clarify it - surely that must mean it was so open to interpretation, that a loophole was exposed.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

What can we do? Well we can all write to our MP's to voice our concerns.

Does anyone have any idea what Montpelier are doing? I spoke to them a couple of weeks ago but they were pretty vague.

Weren't they supposed to be challenging the legislation?

[BrilloPad]

Why is everyone paying so much attention to this article ? We should keep on looking around for developments...

[BrilloPad]

I'm not HMRC or Tim Warr and I resent the implication that I'm only saying what I'm saying because I've got a vested interest. What I've said may actually help if you can be bothered reading to the end of this comment.

Are you Kevin the teenager?

Why don't you just accept that I've got my point of view and you've got yours? It's not about what's right and wrong. I'll take NotAllThere's advice regarding you and not respond to your comments any more; hopefully you'll return the courtesy.

The point about going on about the providers is as follows. If you can establish that the promoter knew about the possibility of retrospective legislation being introduced but didn't tell you then you have at least a remote possibility of suing them for any loss because there's been inadequate duty of care shown. In addition to that, under the new HMRC penalties regime, it means that you have a chance of getting no penalties because you acted reasonably. Both of those things could ultimately save YOU money. No need to thank me.

I can't see myself suing motpelier(I hope they aren't reading this) - but the point about penalties is interesting. If I ever get any I will bear it in mind.

Thing is that I accept that montpelier is not for some people - I have formed the opinion from your posts that you think anyone is mad to join montpelier - even immoral. Have I done you an injustice with that comment?

Can I ask what your interest in the IOM stuff is? You have posted some interesting loinks so clearly know alot. Not sure if you know from my other posts, but I contract at an investment bank(I am 24 years IT, 22 years in IB, 20 years contract) and have been with montpelier for 2 years now.

[BrilloPad]

I think its all about interpretation, if the IR have to clarify it - surely that must mean it was so open to interpretation, that a loophole was exposed.

HMRC case disappears in a puff of logic!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Anyone spoken to Montpelier recently?

When I contacted them a few weeks ago they said they planned to challenge the retrospective clause on the basis of the human rights act before it became law. If that didn't work then there was still a chance of defending the scheme depending on the interpretation of the new legislation, although this sounded like a bit of a long shot to me. I have to say, perhaps not surprisingly they didn't come across as confident as when I'd spoken to them on previous occasions.

If the legislation gets passed, then I'm going assume it's "game over" and start making contingency plans (booking flights to Rio etc. )

Has anyone heard anything new?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

BN66 - Time to fight back!!!

For info, I have started a new thread to discuss tactics for fighting the retrospective legislation.