Case for the prosecution
Lets just go through the main points one at a time.
1. HMRC commence investigation into the MP scheme (sometime in 2003)
2. HMRC require avoidance schemes to be disclosed (2004). They also state their intention to use retrospective law to challenge such schemes, but only going back to the introduction of the disclosure rules.
3. Montpelier disclose the scheme, although it had been under investigation already for 2 years.
4 HMRC issue yearly letters stating their intention to challenge the arrangements in the courts.
5. For 5 years no case is brought.
6. At some time in 2005 the Special Compliance office switches the handling of the case fom Bootle to Manchester. Still no case is brought, letters continue to be issued threatening such action.
7. At some point probably in 2007, the SCO determine that as the law stands, the Montpelier scheme does in fact work, and no tax is due.
8. Unable to accept this conclusion they come up with BN66, stating that the law was not actually what was written down, but is now something else, and this something else (the technicalities are beyond me) means tax in fact is owed. They state this is not a change but a clarification.
9. This clarification means the law was what they now say it is, going back to 1987.
10 Montpelier state their intention to request a Judicial Review on the basis of Human Rights violations.
11. Despite this HMRC continue with the issuing of closure notices. Montpelier appeal these.
12. In some cases they get their calculation completely wrong. In others they issue distraint notices, later admitted to be a 'mistake'. Some tax offices issue closure notices, some do not on the basis that a Judicial Review is pending.
does that cover it... is it enough ?
Lets just go through the main points one at a time.
1. HMRC commence investigation into the MP scheme (sometime in 2003)
2. HMRC require avoidance schemes to be disclosed (2004). They also state their intention to use retrospective law to challenge such schemes, but only going back to the introduction of the disclosure rules.
3. Montpelier disclose the scheme, although it had been under investigation already for 2 years.
4 HMRC issue yearly letters stating their intention to challenge the arrangements in the courts.
5. For 5 years no case is brought.
6. At some time in 2005 the Special Compliance office switches the handling of the case fom Bootle to Manchester. Still no case is brought, letters continue to be issued threatening such action.
7. At some point probably in 2007, the SCO determine that as the law stands, the Montpelier scheme does in fact work, and no tax is due.
8. Unable to accept this conclusion they come up with BN66, stating that the law was not actually what was written down, but is now something else, and this something else (the technicalities are beyond me) means tax in fact is owed. They state this is not a change but a clarification.
9. This clarification means the law was what they now say it is, going back to 1987.
10 Montpelier state their intention to request a Judicial Review on the basis of Human Rights violations.
11. Despite this HMRC continue with the issuing of closure notices. Montpelier appeal these.
12. In some cases they get their calculation completely wrong. In others they issue distraint notices, later admitted to be a 'mistake'. Some tax offices issue closure notices, some do not on the basis that a Judicial Review is pending.
does that cover it... is it enough ?
Comment