BN66 - Time to fight back!!!

[BrilloPad]

create a poll - why not ask if Mal should stop posting here?

Bit OTT, and people not in the scheme would probably vote for him anyway. Probably best if most of us just ignore him.

I would prefer us to stand together as a group! I dont think other people will vote - what benefit for them?

If most people prefer him to be ignored then I will join - though I still intend to give gooner a !

Dont do a poll - anyone beside me think Mal should stay?

[Maddog]

loan repayment

i for one would be happy to assist with funding.

I have a question , I was one of those whose returns were 'investigated' outside the prescribed time limits, on the basis that insufficient information had been provided. do i have a case against Montpelier for the return of the loan repayment I made on the basis that this couldnt happen. word of warning to those still inside the scheme, they can reopen your return as and when they see fit

I paid my initial loan to MTM for 02/03, but will not be raising this point with tax bloke. I want him to concentrate his efforts on the bigger picture i.e. the revenues case. Thanks for offer of help. Let me have intial sessions with this guy 1st and if I think he can be of serious help going forward, will come back to you.

[poppy01]

I would prefer us to stand together as a group! I dont think other people will vote - what benefit for them?

If most people prefer him to be ignored then I will join - though I still intend to give gooner a !

Dont do a poll - anyone beside me think Mal should stay?

no, he doesnt say anything we dont already know, and is a scaremonger...
he seems to be enjoying this too much..

[ASB]

My post of 13th June @ 09:30 was not posted on the forum until late last night. So in case it passed you by, can I ask for some sensible questions to ask an independent tax expert wrt to the MTM vs HMRC situation, on behalf of the schemers that are currently the ones with the most lose, but seem to be getting bugger all feedback from our so called "advisors".

My approach for independent advise is simply to :-

1. Get expert opinion on whether or not we are likely to have to pay the demands we are likely to receive end Aug or whether to toe the MTM line that the demands are invalid
2. What precedence there in such cases
3. Understand more the workings of HMRC if the demand is no longer under dispute and what damage limitation strategies we can follow. I have no idea if say I owe £200K, what demands they will put on me and how long I will have to pay it. Do they send the heavies rounds, can we negoitate as opposed to being made bankrupt etc etc ?

I am still of the impression of innocence until proven guilty, but rather than sit back and do nothing, I will happily spend some cash to a real expert to answer some outstanding questions, and thus help me come up with my strategy to deal with this.

Mad

I think you will find that:-

1) Once you receive an actual assessment you must do one of 2 things:-

a) Accept it
b) Appeal it within 30 days.

If you do not do b then whether you like it or not a has happened. I think it does depend uon the form of the aessment. Whatever you do take advice quickly. If that advice does not cause some action on your part you should be seriously questioning the validity of that advice.

2) There is probably no precedent.

3) Once the asessment has been accepted (i.e. not appealed) and the appeal deadline has passed then HMRC will negotiate. This doesn't mean then accept a lower settlement (though t's by no means unknown). Ultimately they take you to court, get judgement and then get enformcement. It used to be the case that they couldn't take your house but I don't know if that is still true. Ultimately they are simply a creditor and can - and do - attack in just the same way as if you had a 100k overdraft which your bank wanted to foreclose.

If you do make agreement with HMRC over settlement trems - i.e. deferred payment etc they stick to it. They get VERY annoyed if this doesn't happen.

You may like innocent until proven guilty. But it doesn't actually work that way. Ok, the revenue are suppesed to have a reasonable base on which to issue the asessment, but once it is issued it is up to you to prove it worng (there are some absolut horror stories out there of when the revenue have got it wrong and the impact they cause).

You are right that the worst thing you can do is nothing. If you do this you are simply accepting whatever HMRC throw at you. You do need to decide your strategy, and with a complex are like this you need to be deciding it now.

Good luck.

[ASB]

word of warning to those still inside the scheme, they can reopen your return as and when they see fit

I assume HMRC have reopened because of "discovery". I don't know how the partnership income was declared but it does seem to me that simply stating "x k from IOM partnership XXXXXX, relief claimed under section X IOM DTA" ought to be enough to count as full disclosure and preven it being reopended.

i.e. if it is properly declared what have the "discovered". I'd be interested in any profession advice people receive in this area.

[Maddog]

Thanks

ASB - Thanks for response - good points - all noted.

Mad

[poppy01]

I assume HMRC have reopened because of "discovery". I don't know how the partnership income was declared but it does seem to me that simply stating "x k from IOM partnership XXXXXX, relief claimed under section X IOM DTA" ought to be enough to count as full disclosure and preven it being reopended.

i.e. if it is properly declared what have the "discovered". I'd be interested in any profession advice people receive in this area.

Thats exactly what my return stated, I guess they consider the use of this scheme as sufficient discovery.. they are a law unto themselves after all

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Thats exactly what my return stated, I guess they consider the use of this scheme as sufficient discovery.. they are a law unto themselves after all

Their argument for re-opening earlier years goes something like this.

Basically if you don't put enough info/detail on your return , HMRC can later claim that they could not 'reasonably be expected' to enquire, based on the info given. If subsequently more detail is forthcoming (or they discover an alleged abuse, like ours) they can legally re-open prior years.

[ASB]

Their argument for re-opening earlier years goes something like this.

Basically if you don't put enough info/detail on your return , HMRC can later claim that they could not 'reasonably be expected' to enquire, based on the info given. If subsequently more detail is forthcoming (or they discover an alleged abuse, like ours) they can legally re-open prior years.

Yes, but the question is the level of info which is enough. HMRC can, in my view, ALWAYS say "not enough" with anything even slightly out of the ordinary. The tax payer is not extended the same privileges. It can be very difficult for a tax payer to reopen prior year because they, for example, omitted to claim higher rate relief on pension contributions.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Yes, but the question is the level of info which is enough. HMRC can, in my view, ALWAYS say "not enough" with anything even slightly out of the ordinary. The tax payer is not extended the same privileges. It can be very difficult for a tax payer to reopen prior year because they, for example, omitted to claim higher rate relief on pension contributions.

I presume they can re-open tax returns on the basis of retrospective legislation like Clause 55 which goes back to 1987? I believe they are allowed to go back 7 years but there may be exceptions where they can go back further. Although the MTM scheme has only been around 7 years, property developers have been using the DTT loophole for a lot longer.