BN66 - Time to fight back!!!

[poppy01]

hope montpelier havent done too much work preparing their case, i guess we all overestimated hectors competence there for a while,

time HMRC (nulab) learned they cant just do anything they like

[poppy01]

if the retrospection does get thrown out, where does that leave hmrc, will they ever be able to challenge the scheme in court now they've effectivley admitted the existence of the loophole? or will we be able to draw a line under this, and will montpelier now be able to legitimately claim the fees that have been held back ?

[smalldog]

poppy its an interesting one. Montp wont hang around claiming back their fees from all the contractors if HMRC lose BUT thats only if and when our SA investigations are closed and I wonder if and when that would happen....I will be only too glad to pay Montp if and when the SA's investigations are closed as they will have done a great job IMHO...

[Likely]

Are people abandoning Montpelier or are sticking with them ?

[BrilloPad]

Are people abandoning Montpelier or are sticking with them ?

I amn sticking with them.

[BrilloPad]

if the retrospection does get thrown out, where does that leave hmrc, will they ever be able to challenge the scheme in court now they've effectivley admitted the existence of the loophole? or will we be able to draw a line under this, and will montpelier now be able to legitimately claim the fees that have been held back ?

I reckon HMRC will go back to bullying.

[zippo]

Any further news ?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

It looks like we might have to wait a couple more weeks before the ammendment is debated. There is another session of the Committee tomorrow and then parliament is in recess next week. They appear to be working through the bill sequentially, and there is still quite a way to go before they reach Clause 55.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Chartered Institute of Taxation

Memorandum to the House of Lords Finance Bill Sub-Committee:

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/CIOT.pdf

Quote:

Retrospective legislation - Clause 55

While we appreciate the need for the Government to clamp down on what is
perceived as abusive tax avoidance, we can see no justification for the introduction of such legislation with such extreme retrospective effect. The proposal to backdate this legislation to the 1987 legislation is excessive and, whatever the concerns about avoidance, unjustified.

This sort of move gives rise to significant concerns about not only the proportionality of the measure but whether the UK tax system has any certainty and whether the UK is a stable place in which to invest.

[BrilloPad]

It looks like we might have to wait a couple more weeks before the ammendment is debated. There is another session of the Committee tomorrow and then parliament is in recess next week. They appear to be working through the bill sequentially, and there is still quite a way to go before they reach Clause 55.

Thanks DR - please keep us updated