BN66 - charges and interest

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Hi

Do the 34-38% of trust income figures used for rough liabilities include the NIC due ?

Thanks

Yes, the extra NIC is not that significant at around £700-800 per year.

[smalldog]

cool, thats the difference between a set of 18 and 20 inchers for my new DB9!!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

cool, thats the difference between a set of 18 and 20 inchers for my new DB9!!

Did you see this:

http://forums.contractoruk.com/548707-post40.html

The extra NIC is probably offset by the fact that I hadn't realised that the interest penalties are not compound. For example, a simple interest charge of 7.5% over 5 years (37.5%) equates to a compound rate of approx 6.6%. Ok it's not a huge difference but every little helps.

[BrilloPad]

Yes, the extra NIC is not that significant at around £700-800 per year.

Did that come from montpelier?

I seem to remember from the presentation I attended that NIC would not be due - it would be like a dividend.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Did that come from montpelier?

I seem to remember from the presentation I attended that NIC would not be due - it would be like a dividend.

No, it came from the statement I received in June 2006 from HMRC. Additional NIC was as follows:

2002/3 - £712.25
2003/4 - £792.16

[smalldog]

The other thing to consider is IF we lost would Montp be willing to reimburse all their admin and management charges over the years on the basis the product didnt work? That would be a tidy sum with which to offset any charges and interest.

Also are HMRC the type to agree to halt proceedings on the basis of a negotiated settlement? Surely its in their interest to not spend a lot of cash going thru courts, engaging legal counsel etc if they could recover say 50% hassle free....??

[BrilloPad]

The other thing to consider is IF we lost would Montp be willing to reimburse all their admin and management charges over the years on the basis the product didnt work? That would be a tidy sum with which to offset any charges and interest.

Also are HMRC the type to agree to halt proceedings on the basis of a negotiated settlement? Surely its in their interest to not spend a lot of cash going thru courts, engaging legal counsel etc if they could recover say 50% hassle free....??

Please could we wait until the result before deciding on further action?

I was wondering if last Thursday Montp and HMRC would negotiate. Thing is that HMRC are not using their own money. I reckon they will fight to the death.

Whoever proposes negotiation will look weak. Sometimes it is best not to blink first.

I wonder how many clients TW has who want to negotiate? Interesting he put up such a website without speaking to HMRC first.

[cailin maith]

The other thing to consider is IF we lost would Montp be willing to reimburse all their admin and management charges over the years on the basis the product didnt work? That would be a tidy sum with which to offset any charges and interest.

Also are HMRC the type to agree to halt proceedings on the basis of a negotiated settlement? Surely its in their interest to not spend a lot of cash going thru courts, engaging legal counsel etc if they could recover say 50% hassle free....??

But it did work - thats why HMRC have had to introduce retrospective legislation to "clarify" the original stuff..... the original legislation left a big gaping loophole.

[smalldog]

Cailin dont disagree Im fast forwarding into the future. If the judgement goes against Montp then it would be considered not to have worked....

Brillo, its just an open question not intending on acting in any way until we know of course. Otherwise I might be wasting my time and effort...

[DonkeyRhubarb]

The other thing to consider is IF we lost would Montp be willing to reimburse all their admin and management charges over the years on the basis the product didnt work? That would be a tidy sum with which to offset any charges and interest.

People like myself who joined the scheme at the beginning only paid a 6% fee. We retained the other 4% as a loan which is only repayable if we win. I liked this because it gave MTM a big incentive to fight it all the way, and I was a bit suspicious when they stopped offering the 6/4 arrangement after a year or so.

It is going to be hugely expensive fighting this through the courts and IMHO we can't expect MontP to undertake this commitment and then agree to repay all the fees if we lose. Of course, if they don't put up much of a fight then I think we would be right to be a bit aggrieved.

Also are HMRC the type to agree to halt proceedings on the basis of a negotiated settlement? Surely its in their interest to not spend a lot of cash going thru courts, engaging legal counsel etc if they could recover say 50% hassle free....??

I think a lot will depend on the outcome of the JR but I can't see MontP offering them an olive branch if they've got them on the ropes. A negotiated settlement would be a loss as far as MontP concerned, not only in terms of not being able to collect the 4% loan repayments, but also in terms of PR.