BN66 - Time to fight back!!!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Campaign Update

Many people have been writing to their MPs and we are getting a very positive response.

I drew my MP's attention to the following section from the Treasury Committee Ninth Report:
99. Treasury officials told us that:
Following the introduction of the disclosure rules in 2004, it was disclosed that a number of individuals, particularly in the property industry...
I pointed out that my tax returns, along with many others, have been under enquiry since 2003, and that HMRC have already written to us stating their intention to use BN66, when it becomes law, to impose punitive interest penalties. I received a reply yesterday saying that he was taking the matter up with Jane Kennedy, Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

A friend of mine had a real stroke of luck with his MP. Not only is the MP staunchly against retrospective tax but he also happens to be sitting on the Committee which is examining the Finance Bill! He has requested further details on the case so he can raise the matter at Committee when the ammendments come up.

In the beginning I was sceptical and thought it would be complete a waste of time but I'm delighted to be proved totally wrong.

So, if you haven't already written to your MP, do it now using the following website!!!

http://www.writetothem.com

[NotAllThere]

...In the beginning I was sceptical and thought it would be complete a waste of time but I'm delighted to be proved totally wrong...

I'm sure the two MPs will be delighted to know they've got two satisfied customers - which is what the purpose of their replies. It doesn't actually mean they'll do anything, nor, even if they do, that it will have any effect.

You'll be proven totally wrong only when BN66 is defeated.

[BrilloPad]

I'm sure the two MPs will be delighted to know they've got two satisfied customers - which is what the purpose of their replies. It doesn't actually mean they'll do anything, nor, even if they do, that it will have any effect.

You'll be proven totally wrong only when BN66 is defeated.

BlasterBates and Turion must be feeling quite boomful after the doom nature of that post.

Of course nothing in life is certain - but I reckon HMRC is looking weaker and weaker over this issue.

[NotAllThere]

...
Of course nothing in life is certain - but I reckon HMRC is looking weaker and weaker over this issue.

I certainly hope so.

[malvolio]

I certainly hope so.

So do I. But if you do win (by no means certain), look for a proper corrective measure to be in next year's Finance Bill. OK, you can't be done for back tax, but it would kill the scheme off.

As Arctic has shown, once this lot decide on a course of action,. democracy and law go out of the window.

[Chugnut]

Their scheme is based on 2 companies. One off-shore ( Honk Kong based ) which owns a UK Limited. Money get loaned to contractors from the HK based company(or from some offshore Trust arrangement ). As far as I see it , this-type of arrangement minimizes Tax , hence it is Tax Avoidance so in my opinion it should be disclosed.. However on my question if they have Disclosure number he replied some-nonsense. His answer basically meant - yes I know of the disclosure rules bet we don't follow.... ( I think they do it to stay below radars )

On another note -I have not been able to understand how they ( scheme providers ) divert funds offshore. I have read a Double Taxation Treaty. I also remember reading somewhere on the HMRC site that " even though an off-shore company owns a UK limited , still the revenue generated by the UK limited from operations in the UK will be subject to UK taxes ( corp taxes ) even though the offshore company owns the UK one". I think scheme providers go around this on the basis that international companies are taxed based on where the management ( HQ ) is located. Hence they purport the management resides offshore.. ( Does any one have a link to law about this ? )

I would presume the scheme provider fills annual returns to HMRC. These returns will show that funds were sent off shore because the 100 % Shareholder is an Off-shore company. So if the HMRC encounters such tax return , they will be alarmed anyway..... ( without the provider registering to the Disclosure Rules. )

If the promoter of the scheme is based offshore, the duty to disclose falls to the user.

The promoter is unlikely to remind you of this obligation though, are they? They might lose your custom.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I'm sure the two MPs will be delighted to know they've got two satisfied customers - which is what the purpose of their replies. It doesn't actually mean they'll do anything, nor, even if they do, that it will have any effect.

I wouldn't be so pessimistic, especially regarding the MP on the Committee, for 2 reasons:

1) He is a Tory MP, who I'm sure will relish the opportunity to challenge the Government for apparently misleading the Committee

2) I didn't mention that he is a former Shadow Secretary to the Treasury, so he should know his stuff

I agree that none of this guarantees a favourable outcome but it's a damn sight better than nothing.

[BrilloPad]

I'm sure the two MPs will be delighted to know they've got two satisfied customers - which is what the purpose of their replies. It doesn't actually mean they'll do anything, nor, even if they do, that it will have any effect.

I wouldn't be so pessimistic, especially regarding the MP on the Committee, for 2 reasons:

1) He is a Tory MP, who I'm sure will relish the opportunity to challenge the Government for apparently misleading the Committee

2) I didn't mention that he is a former Shadow Secretary to the Treasury, so he should know his stuff

I agree that none of this guarantees a favourable outcome but it's a damn sight better than nothing.

One of the problems with Anonymous internet forums is some people just want to be very negative. Personally I would happily join a site where you had to give your name and address to join and post - just to weed out the trolls. hmmmm - I feel a plan B coming on...

[poppy01]

Dare I hope

I have written to my MP - Andrew Stunnel , Lib Dem so probably of little influence, but from what I've read here recently, dare I begin to hope that Hector might have dropped an almighty b***ck and may not get away with this? He's told porkies to the treasury committee, exhibited extreme incompetence in not closing the loophole 4 years ago, then tried to save face by adopting an extreme measure that goes quite some way beyond 'clarification' and backdated it 21 years, at the same time managing to rule out the possibility they might have there day in court by effectively admitting the loophole existed. I've been in contact with someone from the BN66 site recently (yes TW) and he is in the process of coming up with a scheme to come clean with Hector, pay up on account, with the possibilty of a 'discount' (details not yet clarified)... what do you folks think, shall I hang fire and see how it turns out, or risk paying up?

[NotAllThere]

I just don't have a very high opinion of politicians of whatever political complexion.