BN66 - Time to fight back!!!

[cailin maith]

cailin, so when the scheme was sold to me it was pretty much described as being safe as houses with QC reviews and the like saying it was solid. So if it transpires not to be then that would be justified, if its me or them then guess which side Im fighting on. You expect me to just sit there and hand over almost £200k without a fight, and u call me an idiot

That's not what I said at all - I think you should give them a chance to fight first without wadeing in all guns blazing when you have no idea of what is going on

[smalldog]

cailin absolutely, that would be absolutely the last and final option following it becoming law, a huge tax bill landing on my doorstep and all of Montp's battles being lost etc etc....

[BrilloPad]

cailin, so when the scheme was sold to me it was pretty much described as being safe as houses with QC reviews and the like saying it was solid. So if it transpires not to be then that would be justified, if its me or them then guess which side Im fighting on. You expect me to just sit there and hand over almost £200k without a fight, and u call me an idiot

So **IF** it eventually fails (which looks unlikely) we would not know if to sue Montpelier or their QC(s)?

I have enough trouble worrying about today without thinking of ifs and maybes and buts.

[smalldog]

agreed, lets not even think about it for now

[DonkeyRhubarb]

The ammendment has been tabled

http://www.publications.parliament.u...1605a.119.html

If approved, this will remove the retrospective clause.

It should be debated by the Committee either tomorrow (Tuesday) or Thursday.

I will update the thread as soon as the result is in.

[BrilloPad]

http://www.publications.parliament.u...1605a.119.html

If approved, this will remove the retrospective clause.

It should be debated by the Committee either tomorrow (Tuesday) or Thursday.

I will update the thread as soon as the result is in.

Is there a link to the original clause 55?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Is there a link to the original clause 55?

http://www.publications.parliament.u...9/2008089a.pdf

I did run it past Montpelier and their initial assessment was that leaving out subsection (4) would remove the retrospection but now I'm not so sure.

(4) The amendments made by subsections (1) to (3) are treated as always having had effect.

However, now that I look again, subsection (5) looks a bit dubious:

(5) For the purposes of the predecessor provisions, the members of a partnership are to be treated as having included, at all times to which those provisions applied, a person entitled to a share of income or capital gains of the partnership.

Would someone else care to take a look?

[smalldog]

looks like it removes retrospection to me. If you take out subsection 4 then 5 pretty much becomes a redundant clause as there would be no predecessors as you have removed 1-3....well thats how I read it anyway...

looks like we might be onto a winner here!!!! cross everything

[DonkeyRhubarb]

looks like it removes retrospection to me. If you take out subsection 4 then 5 pretty much becomes a redundant clause as there would be no predecessors as you have removed 1-3....well thats how I read it anyway...

looks like we might be onto a winner here!!!! cross everything

I have asked Montpelier to confirm, and will update the thread as soon I get an answer.

[NotAllThere]

looks like it removes retrospection to me. If you take out subsection 4 then 5 pretty much becomes a redundant clause as there would be no predecessors as you have removed 1-3....well thats how I read it anyway...

looks like we might be onto a winner here!!!! cross everything

It's not clause 1-3. Well, not directly anyway.

(6) “The predecessor provisions” means—
(a) section 153(4) and (5) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970
(c. 10) (as it had effect under section 62(2) of F(No.2)A 1987), and
(b) sections 112(4) to (6) and 115(5) of ICTA.

1) is reference to 115(5)

Perhaps someone with more experience of legalese can translate what clause 6 means. ( especially wrt clauses 1-3 ).

It does look though that it is be proposed that retrospection be struck out.