BN66 - Time to fight back!!!

[poppy01]

103,882 views now, thats 120 in the last hour

If you are a scheme member and have not yet registered or posted, make yourself known now, lets see how many of us there are

[ASB]

What form did this notice take, ASB? Was it legislation or just a statement that the Inland Revenue communicated?

If there is legislation that specifically rules that failed schemes can be backdated to 2004 then I would be worried. If it is just that the scheme is under formal enquiry as mentioned below the I wouldnt be bothered.

Time to start planning that trip to Panama

I can't actually remember. I think it was a budget note and it may have become seperate legislation or part of the finance act.

What I can't [easily] find is a reference to the effect of a failed challenge being backdated to the date of the announcement of the regulatons.

I guess it's in this lot somewhere - of course it may not have made it into the actual legislation but I do recall it raised quite a lot of comment at the time of its announcement:-

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/aiu/legislation.htm

[Ratican]

On our side?

It's time to stand up to the bullies. The 7 MPs that voted AGAINST this legislation being retrospective could be useful as well. Here they are:
VOTED AGAINST RETROSPECTIVITY:

Bone, Mr. Peter
(Conservative - http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do...personID=43417)
Breed, Mr. Colin
(Lib Dem - http://colinbreed.org.uk/)
Field, Mr. Mark
(Conservative - http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do...&PersonID=5016)
Gauke, Mr. David
(Conservative - http://www.davidgauke.com/)
Greening, Justine
(Conservative - http://www.justinegreening.co.uk/)
Hammond, Mr. Philip
(Conservative - http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do...&PersonID=4675)
Hoban, Mr. Mark

</I>

(Conservative - http://www.markhoban.com)

http://www.publications.parliament.u...080522p-03.htm

[malvolio]

Pre Budget Report Dec 2004. Dim Prawn announced to the House that she was reserving the right to backdate any applicable legislation to that date, to permit time to analyse any schemes and other taxation structures that caught their attention and that needed corrective action. This was part of the wider crackdown on avoidance (i.e. NL deciding to make legal activities into illegal ones to get more tax out of people)

Caused a bit of a ruckus at the time, but nobody has tried to strike it down and it still stands. So even if retrospection is struck down (unlikely, but you never know) they could still go back 4 years.

[iansbud]

Hi,

I'm a long time lurker...myself and my wife have been impacted by this retrospective legislation... we were through MTM/Montpelier since about 2003 till got cold feet when New Media went into liquidation and I sensed something was up big time (don't know if related, have read previous posts about this, but i was suspicious at the time anyway). Luckily my wife saw sense earlier and got out - but we are still looking at £150K+ with the penal interest.....

Anyway, whilst I would love to be more proactive, I feel the time has passed us by unfortunately - all of the ideas mentioned which I think are quite good - we should have been doing prior to the legislation actually being given Royal Assent - I am of the view that now our best chance is in the courts, the legalities being argued, and they won't be swung (in my opinion) by some protests or media action etc...

Also, not sure that the idea to get Bernard behind any of this is much good, as I understand he has handed over responsibiites back to the original founder/idea behind the arrangement, and chirman of Montpelier (so they tell me), Walter Gittins. I only got to know this really through a series of very angry emails (from me!) when I was feeling hard done by just after we all received the letters from you know who....still watching mr B??

I (like most posters) just hope that Montpelier keep us informed as to what they are doing/when they do it (for example has the relevant aplication been made yet fo the JR - if not why not?? - how long till the first hearing is likely to take place etc.)

My wife and i have had to re-finance the mortgage, at obviously not the best time, in order to buy a CTD as soon as Mr B gets off his ars*e and posts us the closure notice (funny that the longer they do this, the more interest they earn - just like waiting 4-5 years since they knew about this tax planning arrangement to legisltate retrospecitvely, beyond sneaky). I know I could just buy one now... but i really want to know exactly how much and not pay them a penny more.

Enough of my rant, everyone has heard similar hear before of course. Let's just hope that logic, common sense, justice etc. come through once in front of the courts.... but i am only feeling like there is a coin toss chance really - probably slightly in favour of Hector - hope like h&ck i am wrong. The main fact which still remains I think which is in our favour is that if this legisltation was merely to clarify the HMRC's opinion or governments opinion of the law as it stood then WHY DIDN'T THEY JUST FIGHT IT IN COURT IN THE FIRST PLACE (i.e back in 2003...) INSTEAD OF HAVING TO LEGISLATE RETROSPECITVELY???? Clearly they agree the law as written provided a loophile..... arrrgghhh it makes me mad. Sorry i said enough of my rant.

[dezze]

It's time to stand up to the bullies. The 7 MPs that voted AGAINST this legislation being retrospective could be useful as well. Here they are:
VOTED AGAINST RETROSPECTIVITY:

Bone, Mr. Peter
(Conservative - http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do...personID=43417)
Breed, Mr. Colin
(Lib Dem - http://colinbreed.org.uk/)
Field, Mr. Mark
(Conservative - http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do...&PersonID=5016)
Gauke, Mr. David
(Conservative - http://www.davidgauke.com/)
Greening, Justine
(Conservative - http://www.justinegreening.co.uk/)
Hammond, Mr. Philip
(Conservative - http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do...&PersonID=4675)
Hoban, Mr. Mark

</I>

(Conservative - http://www.markhoban.com)

http://www.publications.parliament.u...080522p-03.htm

Mark Hoban is my MP....I contacted him re:IR35 a few years ago and know he is close to George Osbourne...I hope therefore that George is against retrospection (at least in this case). I don't know if this is going to help the MP boys as if the Tories get in at the next election it may be too late...assuming they remove the retrospective element.

[iansbud]

By the way Mal - according to the government, this was just "clarification of an existing law".. albeit clarification in the favour of the way that HMRC/the government viewed it...

but that being the case - the fact that they noted prior to the budget in 2004 that they reserved the right to make retrospective changes should have nothing to do with this case at all (as they were just clarifying an existing law - although they didn't want to clarify it in the normal way i.e. the courts).

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Hi,

I'm a long time lurker...

Anyway, whilst I would love to be more proactive, I feel the time has passed us by unfortunately - all of the ideas mentioned which I think are quite good - we should have been doing prior to the legislation actually being given Royal Assent - I am of the view that now our best chance is in the courts, the legalities being argued, and they won't be swung (in my opinion) by some protests or media action etc...

Welcome!

We did do quite a bit before the bill was passed (writing to MP's, finance committee etc.) Influential bodies like institute of chartered accountants, institute of taxation, CBI all made representations but it made no odds. The government majority ensured that they could just push it through.

The only thing they will take notice of now is a court of law. Even if I end up having to cough up, I want to at least see Brannigan, Kennedy et al stand up in court and try and defend their incompetence and dishonesty.

Jane Kennedy (knowingly or unknowingly) lied to the Finance Committee and she or whoever is culpable needs to be held to account.

[Emigre]

Welcome!

Jane Kennedy (knowingly or unknowingly) lied to the Finance Committee and she or whoever is culpable needs to be held to account.

Mmmmh! Seem to remember something to do with Tony Blair and some weapons in Iraq... Guess it must just be endemic in this Government

[poppy01]

Pre Budget Report Dec 2004. Dim Prawn announced to the House that she was reserving the right to backdate any applicable legislation to that date, to permit time to analyse any schemes and other taxation structures that caught their attention and that needed corrective action. This was part of the wider crackdown on avoidance (i.e. NL deciding to make legal activities into illegal ones to get more tax out of people)

Caused a bit of a ruckus at the time, but nobody has tried to strike it down and it still stands. So even if retrospection is struck down (unlikely, but you never know) they could still go back 4 years.

that would do me fine, I left in 2003