BN66 - Time to fight back!!!

[oracleslave]

oracle, a company cannot be held to account for the personal debts of a director full stop.

I disagree and have had this happen to me in an admittedly non-tax related matter. Although I won in the end this was a very real possibility.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Ok, I think we've got the message now.

We were idiots to sign up in the first place.
We are scum bags for trying to avoid tax.
We don't deserve any sympathy.
It serves us right if we get totally screwed.

Have I missed anything, or does that just about cover it? Good, in which can we draw a line under this.
-----------------------------

Back to the matter in hand. Just to be on the safe side, I ran my plan to submit evidence to the Treasury Committee past Montpelier and they have given it their blessing. They said that PWC had probably already made the Committee aware of the disparity in the evidence given by Treasury officials but it could be beneficial to have a more direct approach.

I submitted the evidence this afternoon and I will report back if/when I hear anything further.

[ASB]

oracle, a company cannot be held to account for the personal debts of a director full stop. There is no duty of care on behalf of the director...The company is acting in business on its own account, that is fundamental..

They can indirectly. If you own shares in the company they can force the sale of those shares. If the company has a lot of assets they have a very tangible value. If you don't own shares your position is stronger, but if you happen to have some control over them then can still attack. What they can get is all your assets, possibly connected peoples assets and those may well represent the ltds assets.

It's not necessarily easy being the "proverbial man of straw". Simply giving the assets away and retaining some control is generally not enough.

Generally the taxman will get the pound of flesh (asuming it is judged to be owed of course).

[neilawuk]

donkey quite right....anyway back to the point.....I have written to my MP, anyone else in or near the west country that has too, be interesting to kep a regional tally???

[DonkeyRhubarb]

It would be especially writing to your MP if they are on the Treasury Committee. You will find the list of members here:

http://www.parliament.the-stationery.../430/43001.htm

[dude69]

ok, I will inform Montpelier as that is confidential information...

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

I can't believe people think that signing up with companies that won't even disclose what they are selling is a good idea.

Confidential.

Is that what you are supposed to tell HMRC when they investigate you? Sorry it's confidential?

[dude69]

as per the treasuries own statement retrospection jeopardises the entire fabric of the tax system...If HMRC could apply restrospection where would it end, make 30% basic rate from 2000 onwards and make people pay the difference?

What they are doing is solidifying the state of existing law.

This is exactly the same thing that the courts do.

If you get taken to court the judge will interpret the law. The law is not always clear in terms of how it applies to a particular situation.

If you got taken to court the judge could have decided the existing legislation worked in either yours or HMRC's favour.

The government are not stating they have changed the law, they have clarified the correct interpretation of it.

Basically they are saying that all the people who claimed you could treat UK-derived income of UK-resident individuals as arising in the Isle of Man are wrong. It's hardly retrospective legislation.

[BrilloPad]

What they are doing is solidifying the state of existing law.

This is exactly the same thing that the courts do.

If you get taken to court the judge will interpret the law. The law is not always clear in terms of how it applies to a particular situation.

If you got taken to court the judge could have decided the existing legislation worked in either yours or HMRC's favour.

The government are not stating they have changed the law, they have clarified the correct interpretation of it.

Basically they are saying that all the people who claimed you could treat UK-derived income of UK-resident individuals as arising in the Isle of Man are wrong. It's hardly retrospective legislation.

But are they allowed to apply the clarification retrospectively? If they need to calrify then there was a loophole - they are basically saying MTM were right.

And why not let the courts clarify it? Clearly HMRC think they will lose.

MTM want this to go to court - it is HMRC who are dragging the case out and using bully boy tactics.

Interestingly the family courts have interpretted the 1989 Children Act to give it a totally different meaning. "The interests of the child shall be paramount" followed by the shared parenting stuff has been interpretted as "The interests of the child are best served by the mother whose interests shall be paramount".

[neilawuk]

Its funny the amount of people who seem really really keen on us losing this fight. I wonder what the motivation is, jealousy that if we win they have lost out by not joining the scheme in the first place? I cant for one minute believe its all morals, guess its just hector workers towing the company line....

They wont win full stop, they have known about this for years and have failed to close it down when they could have at any time. All they do each year is ask for accounts and keep your tax returns open for year after year....smacks of incompetence to me, but then again people who work for HMRC arent at the top of their game anyway. HMRC doesnt attract the cream of potential employees, funny enough they learn their trade and become tax planning experts and set up on their own....now who does that remind you of

And to follow up on Brillopad, MTM in all their correspondence with me have been waiting and waiting and waiting for HMRC to take them to court and they have got very frustrated they havent. They have been stalling for years and dya know why, cos they know they wont win all they can do is shut it down from this point! If HMRC thought they would win this case dont you honestly think they would have been all over us years ago claiming their tax....They are scared if they take MTM to court and lose then guess what, its open season on DTA's and they know it....Pretty much every year the UK ask the IOM if they wouldnt mind awfully changing the DTA, and guess what the IOM do, give them the bird...

[THEPUMA]

Pretty much every year the UK ask the IOM if they wouldnt mind awfully changing the DTA, and guess what the IOM do, give them the bird...

I don't think that's right. The UK Government can give the IOM notice provided they do it by some time in June in respect of the following tax year.