BN66 - Time to fight back!!!

[BrilloPad]

human rights act on what grounds? sounds a bit desparate to me....

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...hts#post527267

[malvolio]

You have to laugh, don't you. The scheme has just cost you a few tens of thousands and you're thinking of sticking with it...?

What was the definition of insanity - doing exactly the same thing and expecting a different result, wasn't it?

[BrilloPad]

You have to laugh, don't you. The scheme has just cost you a few tens of thousands and you're thinking of sticking with it...?

What was the definition of insanity - doing exactly the same thing and expecting a different result, wasn't it?

Who was that directed at? Who has paid up?

AFAIK the montpelier scheme changed from April.

[smalldog]

mal, there is a long way to go b4 handing over any cash...u havent been around for a while, you back to gloat a bit now we have had some not so good news?

[malvolio]

I've been here all the time....

OK, so let's have a reaility check here. The legislation will now reset to what they meant it to mean in the first place, 20-odd years ago. As a result, in practice anyone who took advantage of the previous interpretation has not paid n years of income tax which is (now) rightfully due to be paid. It looks like there's a good chance you are going to have to pay it (or some significant proportion of it at least).

You are in this position for various reasons, one of which is you believed a company who told you that you could work in the UK, be paid in the UK and not pay any tax in the UK. Can you not see why some of us think that just a ittle bit naive? And now you are looking to continue under that same scheme or some shiny new variant of it.

Fine, it's your money and your risk assessment. But I think you're barking.

[BrilloPad]

I've been here all the time....

OK, so let's have a reaility check here. The legislation will now reset to what they meant it to mean in the first place, 20-odd years ago. As a result, in practice anyone who took advantage of the previous interpretation has not paid n years of income tax which is (now) rightfully due to be paid. It looks like there's a good chance you are going to have to pay it (or some significant proportion of it at least).

You are in this position for various reasons, one of which is you believed a company who told you that you could work in the UK, be paid in the UK and not pay any tax in the UK. Can you not see why some of us think that just a ittle bit naive? And now you are looking to continue under that same scheme or some shiny new variant of it.

Fine, it's your money and your risk assessment. But I think you're barking.

All bn66 has proved is that there is a loophole in the original legislation. However montpelier seem to have admitted that going forward the scheme is closed. There is a new scheme in place.

[Likely]

All bn66 has proved is that there is a loophole in the original legislation. However Montpelier seem to have admitted that going forward the scheme is closed. There is a new scheme in place.

Brillo ,

Are you not concerned by the fact that Note 66 outlaws "Schemes" on a general principle. It reads...

"
This will ensure
that, notwithstanding the wording of any double taxation treaty, UK
residents pay UK tax on their profits from foreign partnerships; and
"

The threat I see is that after 6th April the Gov might prosecute any scheme variations without the need to change/Clarify the law again.

Hence , I would want a scheme explained to me thoroughly before I join it. The people I was with could not do that hence I quit.

[BrilloPad]

Brillo ,

Are you not concerned by the fact that Note 66 outlaws "Schemes" on a general principle. It reads...

"
This will ensure
that, notwithstanding the wording of any double taxation treaty, UK
residents pay UK tax on their profits from foreign partnerships; and
"

The threat I see is that after 6th April the Gov might prosecute any scheme variations without the need to change/Clarify the law again.

Hence , I would want a scheme explained to me thoroughly before I join it. The people I was with could not do that hence I quit.

When I get the energy I will look into it.

[normalbloke]

"You are in this position for various reasons, one of which is you believed a company who told you that you could work in the UK, be paid in the UK and not pay any tax in the UK. Can you not see why some of us think that just a ittle bit naive? And now you are looking to continue under that same scheme or some shiny new variant of it."


Hmm.. I doubt if you'd call Mr Branson, Al-Fayed, Wogan etc 'naive' - quite the opposite I would think. These guys and many more high-rollers have been exploiting legal loopholes for years. How many of them do you think pay 40% tax on their earnings? There was obviously a loophole in this particular Act, else HMRC would have taken everyone to the courts within the past 7 years. The fact they didn't, points to them being on shaky ground. To use retrospective legislation to avoid an embarrassing court loss is scandalous, and this is what everyone should challenge. Its easy to snigger at the moment, but this is a slippery slope.

“Parliament should oppose retrospective legislation, for a number of reasons. The principal democratic reason is that people are perfectly entitled to do whatever the law permits them to do and that it is wrong afterwards to make it unlawful.”—[Official Report, 15 July 1987; Vol. 119, c. 1179.]"
This is quote from Tony Blair! (as those of you who have read the Hansard minutes of the Comittee will have seen). Seems like a sick joke now.

If HMRC think the law has been broken, then let the Courts decide ,on the basis of the existing law as it was worded. HMRC didn't, couldn't or wouldn't. Now they are changing it. Thats wrong.

[Chugnut]

Surely all this is moot.

The Pre-Budget report back in December 2004 effectively ended the tax avoidance industry from that point forward, did it not?

I can see how the DTA backdating to 1987 is contentious, but I thought it was made very clear that it was "on your own head be it" from Dec 2004 onwards.

HMRC tolerance to any scheme is falling year on year; tax avoidance clampdowns have been mentioned in every budget since. Plus for these schemes to be effective you usually have to take a very low salary as well which leaves the amount of unpaid taxes even greater when/if eventually investigated. If you take a larger salary to mitigate this, you'd be better off with no scheme (and it's associated fees), a ltd and a small salary, yes?