BN66 - Time to fight back!!!

[Gooner99]

No tears...

Just wanted to say that it’s not all bad news. This whole thread has given me (and no doubt others) an enormous amount of pleasure and amusement. Those that have been caught by this are almost certainly in the top 5% earnings bracket in the country, but this is not enough. Instead you join some half baked scam that promises to give you even more. Meanwhile, let everyone else pay for schools, hospitals, social services, etc. cos I’m alright Jack! In fact, let them pay even more of their lowly salaries to make up for the tax/NI that you are saving.

Then, when your nasty little scheme is exposed for what it is, i.e. nothing but a vehicle to prevent wealthy people paying their share, let the bleating commence! It’s ‘unfair’, 'we are being bullied’, etc. Have you no shame?

Suck it up, guys, and stop squealing. You’re banged to rights and Hector’s coming to get ya. Get your cheque books out!

[BrilloPad]

I received the following PM :-

========================================
I also wanted to let you know that the meeting is on Thursday with HMRC. I contacted Montpelier today as I received a letter from HMRC about my 05 / 06 return.

This is the response I got back.

The management team have a meeting with HMRC on Thursday to discuss the submission of the accounts. It is not just your accounts which need to be submitted - there are over 1600 set which need to be submitted, which I am sure you will appreciate is no small feat.

This relates to the HMRC letter stating they want to see accounts for the 05 - 06 Tax years.

[smalldog]

I reckon they might talk about a few more things than just account submission

[BrilloPad]

I reckon they might talk about a few more things than just account submission

Who should have won the champions league? The price of fish?

Spill the beans - lets have some gossip!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I reckon they might talk about a few more things than just account submission

Yes, like see you in court!

[smalldog]

definitely. Its so dodgy that HMRC decided to legislate 6 whole years after identifying the scheme rather than litigate. Basically cos they are scared of going to court. A lot of MP's pointed that out to Jane Kenedy but she just seemed to ignore these arguments....dont think a judicial review will toss those points aside quite so flippantly...

[ContractIn]

definitely. Its so dodgy that HMRC decided to legislate 6 whole years after identifying the scheme rather than litigate. Basically cos they are scared of going to court. A lot of MP's pointed that out to Jane Kenedy but she just seemed to ignore these arguments....dont think a judicial review will toss those points aside quite so flippantly...

I do hope so. I am however going to err on the side of caution and get a CTD for what I think would be half my liability and then see what happens.

Incidentally I was with MTM during 3 tax years altho left last year and I have never received anything from HMRC.

[zippo]

Guy's,

How many of you are actualy buying CTD's and how do you figure out how much to buy the CTD for.

Cheers
Zippoo

[smalldog]

this is interesting, look at the date!:

http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/cgi-b...26&h=524&f=525

and check this out which is an extract from the institute of chartered accountants letters to Dawn Prim (paymaster general at the time):

• The legal basis for retrospective legislation is now questionable, particularly in the wider context of EU and Human Rights laws. Emerging EU case law provides that the state cannot retrospectively remove a right without a transitional period (the so-called legitimate expectation right as found in Marks-and-Spencer v C&E Commrs (C-62/00)). If there is no transitional period, then the removal of the right will be illegal under EU law if it interferes with an EC treaty freedom and the state will be liable in damages

We accept that the extent of the legitimate expectation right has yet to be determined precisely in cases where tax avoidance may be an issue, but in our view emerging ECJ decisions suggest that the introduction of retrospective legislation relying on the statement made on 2 December 2005 would still fail the legitimate expectation right, thus making such legislation illegal under EU law.

very interesting....

[Grim Reaper]

Brillo, Received the same message myself - obviously a standard response. Mine also states that they will pay any fees incurred by hanging on past the 30 days.
All in all, a positive direction it seems but I am not hanging on too long.