BN66 - Time to fight back!!!

[helen7]

It could be said that paying yourself dividends from your company on what is, in effect earnings is tax avoidance, since you would otherwise pay full tax and NI. But of course, this is perfectly legal. And paying your wife a salary and dividends from your LTD company when in reality (for most people) she really probably doesn't do any work is again tax avoidance - albeit perfectly legal.

In montp we were being paid from a partnership on which we paid little or no tax. This again WAS (and still is) perfectly legal until such a time that they implement the changes to the finance bill.

We all want to reduce our tax bill in any way possible and since labour have benkrupt the country they are now trying to claw back as much money as possible.


Discalimer should be ignored

[DonkeyRhubarb]

What you still haven't twigged is that most of Monpelier's schemes are tricky and complex but entirely legal and clearly defensible.

How do you know? Can you back this statement up with any examples?

The IOM DTT-based one isn't, is (and always was) clearly against the intent of the law and has been closed off.

If it was not legal then why aren't we being prosecuted for tax evasion?

I know Brillo thinks you are OK and I have really tried to give you the benefit of the doubt over the last few months but I reckon you are just a wind-up merchant, and I can't be bothered arguing with you any more.

[normalbloke]

Laugh like a drain, probably.

What you still haven't twigged is that most of Monpelier's schemes are tricky and complex but entirely legal and clearly defensible. The IOM DTT-based one isn't, is (and always was) clearly against the intent of the law and has been closed off. Of course they'll fight it, but this one they may not actually expect to win

With respect, how the f do you know the ins and outs of all Montpelier's schemes - and what is and isn't 'clearly defensible'? You clearly 'haven't twigged' the fact that most of tax avoidance is against the 'intent' of the law. Presumably only the one you are involved in isn't (assuming you work through a Ltd company you pay yourself dividends -as Helen7 says a 'legitimate' way of avoidance. Oh, that's if you are a true business of course).

The DTT scheme is clearly tricky and complex, or else as I've said before, HMRC would have litigated years ago. You clearly know everything there is to know about the wording of the 1987 legislation, much better than experienced Tax Specialists, QC's, the Treasury and HMRC themselves.

Now what were we saying about 'arrogant twats'...??

[malvolio]

What you still haven't twigged is that most of Monpelier's schemes are tricky and complex but entirely legal and clearly defensible.

How do you know? Can you back this statement up with any examples?

Oh I don't know. But how about, they're still in business after 20 years and several cases??

The IOM DTT-based one isn't, is (and always was) clearly against the intent of the law and has been closed off

If it was not legal then why aren't we being prosecuted for tax evasion?

You aren't... yet. First HMRC have to prove their case, that the law was always as they now say it was. That is the tricky bit, but if they win, then they will come back to you for the back tax. They may well simply assume you made a mistake on the basis of bad advice, in which case back tax and penalties please, or they could prosecute you for willfully failing to declare your UK income correctly. Who knows - the latter is highly unlikely but HMRC are a completely random force these days.

I know Brillo thinks you are OK and I have really tried to give you the benefit of the doubt over the last few months but I reckon you are just a wind-up merchant, and I can't be bothered arguing with you any more.

Your choice. Sticking your fingers in your ears won't help though. I'm not winding people up, I'm merely trying to make them see all the way round a very complex legal and social argument. It's not me that will be in front of the commissioners after all. And as an aside, if you aren't actually under investigation yet, go get your PCGPlus membership sorted so you have professional representation when they do start...

[BrilloPad]

Your choice. Sticking your fingers in your ears won't help though. I'm not winding people up, I'm merely trying to make them see all the way round a very complex legal and social argument. It's not me that will be in front of the commissioners after all.

Personally I am grateful. Thank you.

And as an aside, if you aren't actually under investigation yet, go get your PCGPlus membership sorted so you have professional representation when they do start...

This is a very good point. I left PCG because I went to montp from limited believing that the insurance would be useless. Are you suggesting I made a bad move? Maybe I should email PCG to double check?

I would like to rejoin PCG for the forum - but reckon it is worth about £30 per year to me. I would pay more just to support the cause - but £120=vat(is it still that) would be too much.

[futurecat]

Keep this forum constructive

Pls could we try and keep this forum constructive. People like me want to use this forum for updates on BN66 and any updates from Montpelier.

What we do not want is people discussing:
> The moral angle of the scheme
> Abusive and demeaning attacks on individuals or the contractor community at large.

There seem to be a lot of people who do not have a vested interest in this topic but still seem to want to contribute in a negative way.

[malvolio]

Personally I am grateful. Thank you.



This is a very good point. I left PCG because I went to montp from limited believing that the insurance would be useless. Are you suggesting I made a bad move? Maybe I should email PCG to double check?

I would like to rejoin PCG for the forum - but reckon it is worth about £30 per year to me. I would pay more just to support the cause - but £120=vat(is it still that) would be too much.

PCGPlus gives you professioanl representation for any PAYE aspect inquiry (not just IR35 ones) which is why I thought it might be useful, plus some useful extras like jury service cover and failure insurance as well as the usual £700's worth of other benefits. Drop them an email: £210 a year, you know it makes sense...

[zippo]

Hello All,

I've been on the scheme since 2001 and with Montpelier's help and advice bought a CTD for the bulk of my potential bill in 2007. Its pretty simple - you send a covering letter and transfer the cash and a few days later they send the certificate. The advantage over a payment on account is that the purchase of a CTD is not disclosed to the Special Commissioners so can't be seen as an admission of liability. The disadvantage is that if we win the interest rate is derisory and subject to tax.

More details at: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/howtopay/cert_tax_deposit.htm

D

Hi Dougals,

Quick question with regards to how you calculated the amount to deposit within your CTD. Also did you need put anything specific in the covering letter?

Cheers

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Hi Dougals,

Quick question with regards to how you calculated the amount to deposit within your CTD. Also did you need put anything specific in the covering letter?

Cheers

zippo,

If you can hang on a month or two, we should be getting up to date tax assessments from HMRC which takes the guess work out of it. Although it means clocking up a bit more interest over what I'm getting with Icesave, I have decided to hang on so I know the potential liability is 100% covered.

If you've got the cash available, then taking out a CTD is a wise thing to do particularly as there is a chance that the impending battle could drag on for years. It's simply impossible to match HMRC's interest rate (even as a non-tax payer) without resorting to more risky forms of investment.

DR

[Douglas]

Ctd

Hi Dougals,

Quick question with regards to how you calculated the amount to deposit within your CTD. Also did you need put anything specific in the covering letter?

Cheers

Hi Zippo,

I estimated my liability for each year as the remainder of my basic rate tax allowance at 20% plus the rest of the trust income at 40%. I then added interest at the published HMRC rates.

However this isn't accurate. I have since learnt from this forum that
a) HMRC may not compound interest.
b) HMRC may charge interest on missing payments on account.

The covering letter just gave my name, address, amount and date of deposit.

D