BN66 - Time to fight back!!!

[elpinar]

3. I spoke with Mr Warr (warr.co.uk) about his ideas related to pushing the tax liability onto agencies. ?

dont know about anyone else - but I feel this would be a very immoral course if action..... we took the decision to join MontP - not the agenices - you never ( I assume) explained the scheme to the agents - and if you win I.m assuming you werent planning on giving them a cut ... so to expect them to pickup the bill would really be pushing wrong regardless of whetehr Mr War thinks he can swing it or not.
Dont you think if you went down that route you are almost as bad as Mr B and his jolly band ... changing the rules after the game has been played ......

Ps - sorry if the tantrum icon comes up again - I cant seem to get rid of it ....... i have my no icon button checked but up it seems to come every time I post

[Emigre]

dont know about anyone else - but I feel this would be a very immoral course if action..... we took the decision to join MontP - not the agenices - you never ( I assume) explained the scheme to the agents - and if you win I.m assuming you werent planning on giving them a cut ... so to expect them to pickup the bill would really be pushing wrong regardless of whetehr Mr War thinks he can swing it or not.
Dont you think if you went down that route you are almost as bad as Mr B and his jolly band ... changing the rules after the game has been played ......

Ps - sorry if the tantrum icon comes up again - I cant seem to get rid of it ....... i have my no icon button checked but up it seems to come every time I post

What have morals got to do with it? When it comes to morals should we not be guided by our Government? They would appear to be the ones severely lacking in moral fibre. Mossman set it out well - first being attacked on IR35 which is why most went looking and found MP, and then retrospective legislation. Why should individuals have to pay for a complete lack of ethical principles in Government and its henchmen (hello Mr B )?

However, IMO the Warr effort (no pun intended) is nothing short of an attempt to cash in on the present level of uncertainty. I suggest there is less likelihood of their approach working than sticking with MP and fighting our corner. Strange that a socialist Government appears to come out somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun...

For the record I do share your ethical standards which is why it is time to fight.

[redkieran]

About loan schemes - I learnt a few days ago from a friend that bonuses at his (very large international) company can be arranged in a loan scheme. It is different to MP, but the principle looks very similar.

[SantaClaus]

A thought on CTD's

Just a thought on CTD's from someone who wouldnt rule out any underhand filthy tactics from Mr Brannigan (hello )

If the govt. can do as they please when it comes to re-writing tax law, retrospective taxation, breaking European Human Right's law etc, etc, whats to stop them deeming a CTD as owned by the Inland Revenue some time in the future?

In other words, whats to stop them putting a law through parliament that says "We now own your CTD's".

Just a thought for all you people putting your money in something that is currently considered as "safe".

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Warr & Co

However, IMO the Warr effort (no pun intended) is nothing short of an attempt to cash in on the present level of uncertainty.

The trouble is they only get to make any money (5% of trust income) if they win. On the BN66 website they admit that the £1000 up-front will barely cover their costs. If it turns into a protracted enquiry requiring further resources (tax counsel etc.) then I can't see how they will be able to continue without asking for more money. And once you have embarked on this route you may have no choice other than to cough up.

Basically, regardless of the efficacy of their solution, I would question whether they are sufficiently funded to take this on.

[ContractIn]

[QUOTE=DonkeyRhubarb;615528]

If you can't wait for the assessment/closure notice from Hector, then depositing an amount equal to 1/3rd of the total trust income should stop the bulk of any further interest penalties.[/QUOTE]

I got MP to provide an illustration for me and it was not too far off the 33% mark, maybe a little higher. My CTD is now purchased albeit about 10K short but will stop bulk of the interest.

Very depressing writing the cheque so all I can do now is sit back and wait for further updates/outcomes.

[twinkle]

Hi all,
new to the thread, been with MP about 2 years, got my letter from MP on Saturday re new scheme.

Could someone kindly summarise the benefit of a CTD on the basis that i may have, as an example only, have a to make a payment of £30k (plus interest) to HMRC.

Thanks

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Just a thought on CTD's from someone who wouldnt rule out any underhand filthy tactics from Mr Brannigan (hello )

If the govt. can do as they please when it comes to re-writing tax law, retrospective taxation, breaking European Human Right's law etc, etc, whats to stop them deeming a CTD as owned by the Inland Revenue some time in the future?

In other words, whats to stop them putting a law through parliament that says "We now own your CTD's".

Just a thought for all you people putting your money in something that is currently considered as "safe".

Even ignoring the backlash and uproar this would cause there are a few practical obstacles.

Currently, just like a savings account, you can withdraw the money from a CTD at any time, so they would have to find a way of preventing you doing this while the legislation was going through. Besides, if there was even just a whiff of a rumour that they were up to something then there would be an immediate run on CTD deposits.

A more obvious way they could **** us over would be to discontinue the CTD scheme and return the money to us with the paltry interest it pays. The trouble is, this government is so strapped for cash, they would have to borrow the money from somewhere else to pay back the CTDs. After all, what do you think they do with CTD deposits? Spend it of course!!!

[SantaClaus]

Even ignoring the backlash and uproar this would cause there are a few practical obstacles.

Currently, just like a savings account, you can withdraw the money from a CTD at any time, so they would have to find a way of preventing you doing this while the legislation was going through. Besides, if there was even just a whiff of a rumour that they were up to something then there would be an immediate run on CTD deposits.

A more obvious way they could flip us over would be to discontinue the CTD scheme and return the money to us with the paltry interest it pays. The trouble is, this government is so strapped for cash, they would have to borrow the money from somewhere else to pay back the CTDs. After all, what do you think they do with CTD deposits? Spend it of course!!!

I'm just very cynical about the whole thing. HMRC can freeze your bank account at any time, so why not a CTD? In the case of a bank account, you wont be given any notice, it will be done immediately (and probably electronically).

Sorry if I'm beginning to sound like Malvio.

[Ratican]

Just a thought. If I hadn't signed to the MTM/Montpelier scheme I would have worked through my limited company and paid out only a little more to HMRC. In the unlikely event that we do lose could we not RETROSPECTIVELY claim that we should have been working Ltd all along (based on the RETROSPECTIVE changes applied through BN66 and thus only now being fully informed) and work out the tax due based on that? Does that not seem reasonable?