BN66 - Time to fight back!!!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Assuming you are in the wrong. If you are in the right, you lose out. Think on...

Except that there is no possibility of negotiating a settlement if you have already paid up.

Personally, their tactics over the past 5 years lead me to distrust them intensely, and I would have no confidence of getting the money back without lengthy/expensive legal battles.

So I'm hanging on to the money. If they want it they'll have to come and get it.

[malvolio]

QED.

[smalldog]

I am really p*ssed off with HMRC, why on earth didnt they shut it down if they always intended on doing it around 2002, not 2008???!!!!!

IMHO their position in that respect is indefensible. Can someone give me a reason why they didnt do it sooner? They will be asked this over and over and without a strong case I cant see how back dating a tax liability holds water, regardless of any retrospection in relation to the clause itself.

Lets be realists, MP's arent barristers they are just common people voted into government. Legislation is there to be tested in court, let battle commence...

Donkey et al dont be too down hearted, this legislation just means it will have to go to court. Its what we always thought would happen, just would have been nice if the bill had put a stop to it earlier in the process...

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I am really p*ssed off with HMRC, why on earth didnt they shut it down if they always intended on doing it around 2002, not 2008???!!!!!

IMHO their position in that respect is indefensible. Can someone give me a reason why they didnt do it sooner? They will be asked this over and over and without a strong case I cant see how back dating a tax liability holds water, regardless of any retrospection in relation to the clause itself.

Lets be realists, MP's arent barristers they are just common people voted into government. Legislation is there to be tested in court, let battle commence...

Donkey et al dont be too down hearted, this legislation just means it will have to go to court. Its what we always thought would happen, just would have been nice if the bill had put a stop to it earlier in the process...

I ain't downhearted but I will be bl*ody disappointed if we don't get our day in court. HMRC/Treasury need blasting for their incompetence.

[poppy01]

can anyone lend me 35 grand

[BrilloPad]

I ain't downhearted but I will be bl*ody disappointed if we don't get our day in court. HMRC/Treasury need blasting for their incompetence.

My ex works for HMRC. well perhaps works is not the right term. apparently most there are even more power crazed and stupid than she is.

There will be a day in court - at least for the judical review and probably more.

[smalldog]

reading the transcript of the debate in the commons a few bits look very wobbly for HMRC...particularly when Jane Kennedy is asked why legislation hasnt been implemented earlier than now.....she totally didnt answer the question....I also like this point that also didnt really get an answer:

Mr. Gauke: I do not think that the Minister has reassured Conservative Members at all. There is an essential contradiction in what she said. She said that HMRC is confident that the clause merely reasserts existing law, that it is not a change in law and that the schemes are in clear breach of the law, yet she suggests that some £200 million in back tax is at risk. If the law is as she says—I have no reason to doubt it—that sum is not at risk, because all that is required is for HMRC to litigate. It prompts the question why HMRC will not litigate. Why is it not prepared to take the matter to court?

[BrilloPad]

reading the transcript of the debate in the commons a few bits look very wobbly for HMRC...particularly when Jane Kennedy is asked why legislation hasnt been implemented earlier than now.....she totally didnt answer the question....I also like this point that also didnt really get an answer:

Mr. Gauke: I do not think that the Minister has reassured Conservative Members at all. There is an essential contradiction in what she said. She said that HMRC is confident that the clause merely reasserts existing law, that it is not a change in law and that the schemes are in clear breach of the law, yet she suggests that some £200 million in back tax is at risk. If the law is as she says—I have no reason to doubt it—that sum is not at risk, because all that is required is for HMRC to litigate. It prompts the question why HMRC will not litigate. Why is it not prepared to take the matter to court?

A very very good question. And one to which we all know the answer. But that does not help us - we need a judicial review prefrably with some sort of fall back plan (ECHR challenge).

Intresting that the retrospective thing has also come up with regards to car tax (the retrospective bit being people's choice of car). Labour MPs seem happy to revolt on that one - the issue there presumably being the number of votes at stake.

[ContractIn]

Other providers?

Hi All

Does this new legislation impact the MTM scheme only? I have not seen any postings from anyone else who believes they are impacted from another scheme provider?

Question is, is MTM the only provider who will challenge this legislation?

Also, has anyone as yet had a response from MTM on what the next steps are before I make my call?

How are people working their liability out?

Cheers

[BrilloPad]

Question is, is MTM the only provider who will challenge this legislation?

I would love to know the answer to that. After all, bn66 was aimed at property developers?

Also, has anyone as yet had a response from MTM on what the next steps are before I make my call?

From what I have read here next step is a judicial review. But I am waiting for some official stuff from montpelier. I guess at the moment they are quite busy preparing their next step. I have suggested they have an official news part on their website as I like to hear from them directly. I trust them (cue abuse from Mal).