BN66 - Time to fight back!!!

[scott_free]

Payments on account

Can HMRC can now demand payment on account for 2008-2009 of the revised figures without waiting for the JR to go through ?

Read that interest is also due where the figures differ by large amounts

[RockTheBoat]

No you're right, I have no idea how HMRC prursue their court cases, never having had any opportunity to study them - well, apart from the 50 or so samples on the PCG website and the associated expert commentaries of course...

Updated TROLLCOUNT = 90

[MuddyFunster]

Any more lurkers?

Another lurker here

I've been reading this thread with interest for the last couple of weeks. I was on the scheme with MontP for about three years so I'm looking at a rather hefty bill. I've decided to at HMRC and wait to see what happens with the JR and ECHR appeal. I've mentioned my situation to a few people and each of them said they thought the retrospective nature of this will be overturned. They aren't tax experts of course, but it does give a bit of confidence.

[tay]

As a member of the PCG, and someone who has absolutely nothing to do with this case or Montpelier, I think Molv is acting like a complete tool and is an embarassment to himself and the PCG.

Wish he would just shut his gob and stop trying so hard to be a smart ass.

[malvolio]

OK, I'm gone. Just to summarise my contribution for hte hard of thinking and stripping out the Malvolioisms, the banter and the name calling:

1. You collectively do not appear to understand the mechanics of the process you are relying on nor those of your opponents

2. You are putting undue faith in a supplier that may not have the same motivations as you do

3. You do not fully understand the legal processes that are being used, their duration and their applicabiliilty to your individual positions

4. You were possibly foolish to get into this position in the first place, and you probably don't have the moral support of the majority.

Have fun. Hope you win.

[tay]

OK, I'm gone. Just to summarise my contribution for hte hard of thinking and stripping out the Malvolioisms, the banter and the name calling:

1. You collectively do not appear to understand the mechanics of the process you are relying on nor those of your opponents

2. You are putting undue faith in a supplier that may not have the same motivations as you do

3. You do not fully understand the legal processes that are being used, their duration and their applicabiliilty to your individual positions

4. You were possibly foolish to get into this position in the first place, and you probably don't have the moral support of the majority.

Have fun. Hope you win.

Wow... that post really sums you up. Well done.
You couldnt have made a bigger idiot of yourself if you had tried.


I am actually kind worried if you act in any kind of official capacity for ther PCG as you are incerdibly unproffesional.

[snaw]

incerdibly unproffesional.

Was that irony?

[malvolio]

Wow... that post really sums you up. Well done.
You couldnt have made a bigger idiot of yourself if you had tried.


I am actually kind worried if you act in any kind of official capacity for ther PCG as you are incerdibly unproffesional.

Malvolio and the PCG me are two very different people...

Oh bugger - I posted here again. Sorry.

[BolshieBastard]

Finally happy to say I received the hardcopy letter from MP today.

[BrilloPad]

As a member of the PCG, and someone who has absolutely nothing to do with this case or Montpelier, I think Molv is acting like a complete tool and is an embarassment to himself and the PCG.

Wish he would just shut his gob and stop trying so hard to be a smart ass.

WHS * power(googleplex, googleplex)