BN66 - Time to fight back!!!

[ASB]

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

For what it's worth (which is probably very little) the UK government might struggle to unilaterally reinterpret the wording of a bilateral treaty.

Essentially HMG is saying "we don't like this bit of the treaty so we are going to ignore it". There will be possible consequences for the whole treaty as a result (but HMG will probably beat the tynwald into submission quite easily).

[IR35 Avoider]

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.

It was an absurd claim, it was an outrageous claim, and, since it has taken retrospective legislation to close the scheme, it was apparently a true claim.

How will you feel when they change the IR35 rules with retrospective effect back to 2000 so that no matter what your contracts and working practises, all your income since then is restrospectively caught? Will you say it's a fair cop when BOS contractors who declared themselves caught from day one laugh at you for thinking you could get around HMRC's attempt to tax you as an employee by complying with the wording of the law?

Okay, I don't think this is going to happen. The difference between your position and the offshorers is one of degree of avoidance. Of course a difference of degree can be important; it's the extremeness of the offshore scheme that has made it worthy of retrospective legislation in the governments eyes. However retrospective legislation is such an unusual reponse that I don't think it's fair to laugh at people for not anticipating it.

[malvolio]

In my last full trading year I paid a total of a shade over £48k taxes on my overall income, company and personal. I didn't pay any of it under IR35, it's all accountable and all aligned to current legislation. That is subtly different to using a dubious interpretation of a law by a scheme that clearly goes against the spirit of the law if not the precise (or in this case imprecise) wording.

Retrospective legislation has a long and valid history, go look it up. Snag is, this isn't retrospective legislaiton, it's not even a reinterpretation a lá S660 and Arctic, it's clarification of existing legislation.

Continuing to put money in the hands of the same people that got you into this mess, that's what I'm laughing at.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Yesterday afternoon's debate

If you have got time, I would encourage anyone affected by the legislation to read the following transcript. If you suffer from high blood pressure, you may want to take some tablets first

Let's see if HMRC/Treasury's feeble arguments stand up when Montpelier take them to court in a few weeks time.

http://www.publications.parliament.u...p-01.htm#start

[DonkeyRhubarb]

New letter from HMRC

Anyone else received this? They are threatening penalties if Trust accounts aren't produced within 30 days.

http://forums.contractoruk.com/543562-post93.html

[BrilloPad]

If you have got time, I would encourage anyone affected by the legislation to read the following transcript. If you suffer from high blood pressure, you may want to take some tablets first

Let's see if HMRC/Treasury's feeble arguments stand up when Montpelier take them to court in a few weeks time.

http://www.publications.parliament.u...p-01.htm#start

Well worth a read. HMRC on v v dodgy ground - any barrister will rip that to shreds.

[BrilloPad]

Anyone else received this? They are threatening penalties if Trust accounts aren't produced within 30 days.

http://forums.contractoruk.com/543562-post93.html

HMRC told Montpelier it was not needed! The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Let's give Montpelier a chance

I realise some people are getting very twitchy but before you throw in the towel (pay on account, go to Tim Warr etc.), can I suggest that we give Montpelier until the end of June to see if they come up with the goods?

I am in exactly the same situation as you, and stand to lose a sum in excess of six figures if this goes against us. I am just as worried but at this stage another month is not going to make much difference. The deal from Tim Warr will still be there in a month's time, and if you decide to pay on account you will only have incurred a tiny bit more interest.

Although the Finance Committee decision was a setback, this was never part of Montpelier's strategy. Writing to MPs and lobbying the committee was our initiative. Some may say it was a waste of time but I would totally disagree. At the very least we have now got the government's lame defence of Clause 55 on the public record if it goes to court.

Does anyone disagree with giving them until the end of June?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Ps

I should add that IMO if Clause 55 becomes law then I reckon we are sunk. Montpelier may try and convince us that it's worth fighting on but defending the scheme based on an interpretation of the 1987 legislation is one thing; however BN66/Clause 55 is a whole different ball game.

This is why I have suggested giving them to the end of June. After that, I will have to give consideration to cutting my losses and negotiating a deal. The alternative is to risk throwing good money after bad and racking up even more interest penalties.

Any comments?

[housesforcourses]

I agree, I dont think there is much harm to waiting till the end of June, its only a few weeks to go. If Montpelier do have a plan then its worth hearing it, and if it turns out that they dont then perhaps its worth seeing how many of us there are on here. It maybe more effective in whatever we decide do (if for example we have to approach the revenue, or Tim Warr to see what his solution is) there is a group of us?