BN66 - Time to fight back!!!

[cailin maith]

Mal and Gooner are the only two talking sense, if you had the wit to listen instead of trying to blame the messenger. You've been told why you're ina mess, why your cunning plan is too dependent on a company that seems to have its own agenda and why you needed to get yourselves organised enough to present a combined front to help defend the situation. I've also pointed out the glaring weaknesses on your case so you might have had some idea about how to strengthen them. All I've seen is a dozen or so people scrabbling around for bits of info from their paid suppliers and "PM me and I'll tell you a secret".

I wish you well, I really do, but I think you're colelectively doomed.

I keep forgetting you are a qualified tax barrister - thanks for reminding us

[malvolio]

I keep forgetting you are a qualified tax barrister - thanks for reminding us

you had the wit to listen instead of trying to blame the messenger.

QED ...

[SantaClaus]

I agree, although I suspect it will end up in Hector's hands anyway as there must be at least a few disgruntled clients out there who have either already thrown in the towel or are in cahoots with the likes of Warr & Co.

I am sure MontP realise that the contents of the Circular won't remain private forever. However, let's make sure that this forum is not the source of any leak.

Received letter today. I just want to second Mr Rhubarb's comment that we should keep the contents of the letter private.

[elpinar]

thanks to whoever gave me the 'not worth listening to' tag .... did you ever consider that perhaps 'cos I am new and dont know whos who yet - I dont want to put up anything that may be used against us?

[cailin maith]

thanks to whoever gave me the 'not worth listening to' tag .... did you ever consider that perhaps 'cos I am new and dont know whos who yet - I dont want to put up anything that may be used against us?

Dont be so paranoid - everyone gets that - all newbies regardless of what or where you post.

[BrilloPad]

Mal and Gooner are the only two talking sense, if you had the wit to listen instead of trying to blame the messenger. You've been told why you're ina mess, why your cunning plan is too dependent on a company that seems to have its own agenda and why you needed to get yourselves organised enough to present a combined front to help defend the situation. I've also pointed out the glaring weaknesses on your case so you might have had some idea about how to strengthen them. All I've seen is a dozen or so people scrabbling around for bits of info from their paid suppliers and "PM me and I'll tell you a secret".

I wish you well, I really do, but I think you're colelectively doomed.

And I think you are a singular idiot. Your posts make Chico look intelligent.

And you continually change your mind. Cant you pick an ideal and stick to it?

Those who have reead all your posts know you have a sub plot which involves montp (and others) failing.

Are you having an affair with Mr Brannigan(BTW hello)?

I wish you would f**k off. SEriously.

[ASB]

I have been with Montp for 5 years. I have not received my letter from them yet but have requested an electronic copy.

If the letter is issued by a lawyer, acting in a legal capacity, eg a tax lawyer, then the content of the letter is likely to be classified as "privileged", a legal term whereby the content of client/attorney communications do not need to be disclosed to the opposition (hi Mr B ).

You could well be right - but it must be issued by a lawyer for the main purpose of producing legal advice. So, yes, the possibility exists that it is privileged.

But that wasn't really my point. If that advice forms part of the defence case it will have to be disclosed prior to the hearing. So if it does contain some golden nugget then HMRC will have plenty of time to try and figure out how to defeat it. If they know sooner surely they might just think "bugger, this kills our case stone dead".

[malvolio]

Be careful, your paranoia is showing.

I'm a freelance with my own company and have spent quite a lot of the last 10 years working to improve contractors' conditions. What possible reason would I have to see MP fail or a fellow contrator get stuffed with a six-figure tax demand?

I think it's you that needs to f* off, little man, but you plough your own furrough, I could care less.

[BrilloPad]

QED ...

To all the newcomers here - Mal is the uber-troll. LOoks like he is a bit grumpy - I guess he had a bad night sleeping under the bridge. Or maybe Mr Brannigan (hello ) was snoring last night.....

Mr Brannigan (hello ) is the uber-HMRC bod who organizes all the strong-arm bully-boy stuff.

Oh and welcome again.....

[Emigre]

I'm at a loss to understand the constant slagging off that goes on on this thread. The title of the thread is "BN66 - Time to fight back!!!" It's a call to arms. A good debate will only happen where people have different views and opinions but why do those with such glass half empty attitudes waste their own and others time with their regular posts here? If they don't have a personal interest, some of their comments can only constitute gloating, not a pleasant character trait, and certainly not necessary on a quality forum.

Surely the title of this thread suggests participation from those with genuine interest and with a positive approach to challenging legislation that blatantly contravenes human rights (there are already precedents supporting this statement). The problem here is that the successful application of retrospective legislation can only apply in favour of the legislators, there is no opportunity for scheme participants to retrospectively remanage their affairs in the next best available way. In other words, not only does the Government seek to close the door retrospectively, they also get to choose how your deemed income gets taxed. There is no way for example that you could retrospectively be deemed to have operated through a limited company. I went onto the Montp scheme as a result of the uncertainty surrounding IR35 and S660.

I for one believe that Montp have a strong case for a number of reasons, many of which have been discussed elsewhere on this thread. I do not believe that I am looking at the world through rose-tinted glasses but in a rational way. It is essential that Montp be allowed to build their case. There is no upside in them sharing every angle they may have. The sense that I have had from them is that information is shared as and when there is something that can or needs to be said.

Emigre