• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

BN66 - charges and interest

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #51
    Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View Post
    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.

    Donkey, good point about MontP's PR. We have to remember they are a large organisation with many setups lots of countries. Losing could seriously damage their credibility with other clients as self proclaimed tax experts. People may decide to take their business elsewhere...

    Comment


      #52
      Originally posted by smalldog View Post
      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...
      IMO just by discussing it we are wasting time and effort on stuff that is at least months and possibly years away. I would rather focus on the here and now.

      It is also a bit defeatist? The odds are heavily with us - as CM pointed out HMRC have in effect admitted defeat.

      Also it adds stuff to this thread that is a distraction.

      Comment


        #53
        lets hope so

        Comment


          #54
          Originally posted by BrilloPad View Post
          IMO just by discussing it we are wasting time and effort on stuff that is at least months and possibly years away. I would rather focus on the here and now.

          It is also a bit defeatist? The odds are heavily with us - as CM pointed out HMRC have in effect admitted defeat.

          Also it adds stuff to this thread that is a distraction.
          Good point. I think we are in danger of keeping the discussion going just for the sake of it (as I'm doing now :-). I don't think there is much more to talk about until the JR kicks off.

          Comment


            #55
            also gives mal, gooner et al the opportunity to flame us,
            but i confess, i enjoy reading the board, makes me realise i'm not in this alone.

            Comment


              #56
              Originally posted by poppy01 View Post
              also gives mal, gooner et al the opportunity to flame us,
              but i confess, i enjoy reading the board, makes me realise i'm not in this alone.

              Oi! I'm not flaming anyone.

              I'm just trying to make sure you see all sides of the argument, not just the bits you want to.
              Blog? What blog...?

              Comment


                #57
                Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View Post
                Good point. I think we are in danger of keeping the discussion going just for the sake of it (as I'm doing now :-). I don't think there is much more to talk about until the JR kicks off.
                Hi All

                I am slightly aggrieved that I still have not had any formal response from Montp, despite e-mailing and calling so I am having to rely on your good selves for updates and opinions.

                Anyway, as I have not ever had a letter from HMRC despite being with Montp in 05/06, and now from this forum I understand that Montp will be disclosing all the partnership incomes to HMRC who will then be adjusting our SA's to submit demands on us. My question is, should I purchase my CTD now to minimise any interest etc or should I wait until I receive formal notification from HMRC, or the result of the JR?

                Thanks

                Comment


                  #58
                  Originally posted by ContractIn View Post
                  Hi All

                  I am slightly aggrieved that I still have not had any formal response from Montp, despite e-mailing and calling so I am having to rely on your good selves for updates and opinions.

                  Anyway, as I have not ever had a letter from HMRC despite being with Montp in 05/06, and now from this forum I understand that Montp will be disclosing all the partnership incomes to HMRC who will then be adjusting our SA's to submit demands on us. My question is, should I purchase my CTD now to minimise any interest etc or should I wait until I receive formal notification from HMRC, or the result of the JR?

                  Thanks
                  yes, its gives you real confidence going forward with the "new scheme"

                  Comment


                    #59
                    Mal, I dont think you can now say you are just trying to get us to see both sides after this rant:

                    "Then we have a couple of thousand arrogant twats who think that by using some obscure and dubious (and now demonstrably incorrect) interpretation of two lines of badly written legislation, they need not pay any UK tax at all on 95% of their UK income. What's worse, they think they are so right they should challenge HMG through the courts to protect their patently ridiculous position.

                    Well here's the truth. You are cheating everyone else and you're damaging our own case quite severely but are too selfish to realise it. AFAIC you deserve all you get. Enjoy the rest of this thread and your futile legal challenge. I'm staying out of it in case I say something I actually regret."


                    You blatantly have an opinion and (aggressive) bias which unfortunately for me unlike Brillo, means I wont be able to take any of your comments with any level of objectivity in future. Not only do u resort to name calling but you are also factually wrong, doesnt do much for credibility does it. If it were me I think I would already be regretting.
                    Last edited by smalldog; 2 June 2008, 14:56.

                    Comment


                      #60
                      If you don't recognise the truth when you see it, not my problem. That was not a rant, it was actually how most of the contractor community view the minority who use these schemes.

                      No matter, I could care less.
                      Blog? What blog...?

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X