BN66 - Time to fight back: Continued

[TykeMerc]

I'm not a MontP sufferer (so very nearly was) but I've been following this thread.

Were HMRC previously painting BN66 as purely a clarification? If so and they've admitted on the letter you folks have received that it's retrospective then I agree you should pursue that line and in my view a letter from HMRC on their letterhead is an official document. Retrospective taxation is wrong on so many levels.

Keep up the fight, I will be delighted when I see that you've won

[ASB]

I have three things to say:

1. I don’t think a commissionaires hearing could be heard while the JR is outstanding. That would be what I think is called murmuring (ie a higher court cannot be contradicted by a lower court).

Can I take minor issue wth your choice of words? Change could to will and I'll agree. There is nothing that prevents HMRC forcing a hearing. There is a good possibilty that if they did they might not get the result they want - but that is a different thing.

[BrilloPad]

I'm not a MontP sufferer (so very nearly was) but I've been following this thread.

Were HMRC previously painting BN66 as purely a clarification? If so and they've admitted on the letter you folks have received that it's retrospective then I agree you should pursue that line and in my view a letter from HMRC on their letterhead is an official document. Retrospective taxation is wrong on so many levels.

Keep up the fight, I will be delighted when I see that you've won

Many many thanks for your support - many peopl affected will really appreciate it

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/budget2008/bn66.pdf

Interestingly they say "clarify retrospectively" so it was already admitted.

I expect much will be made of this wording at the JR.

[Toocan]

Big ABe can see CLEARLY now!

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/budget2008/bn66.pdf

Interestingly they say "clarify retrospectively" so it was already admitted.

But now they've dropped the word clarify and are referring to is for what it is - retrospective legislation.


Maybe we should but together an "charge sheet" against HMRC - there is a lot we can complain about.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

50,000 users of DTA Schemes

What does everyone make of this?

http://forums.contractoruk.com/678479-post14.html

I find it a bit hard to believe, when we are only aware of a couple of thousand (MP & Degraaf combined), and I wouldn't have thought there were many property developers.

If it was true, the tax revenue could run into billions.

[BrilloPad]

But now they've dropped the word clarify and are referring to is for what it is - retrospective legislation.


Maybe we should but together an "charge sheet" against HMRC - there is a lot we can complain about.

Very good point - the full sentence is "HMRC has been served with a notice of an application for judicial review in respect of the retrospective provisions of section 58". So they basically admit retrospection. Looks like in replying to comments on this forum they have shot themselves in the foot. At least no-one on here pretenders to be an expert. HMRC are not tax QCs - they should have consulted them for sending the letter.

Could I add to the charge sheet telling montp they would not require accounts - they sending a letter directly to clients telling them 30 days to provide them or else!

I wish they would just get on with their job. Still - while there are some who fall for it who can blame them for trying? Its their job to mess with our minds and our job to stay sane.

BP

[TheFaQQer]

I didn't know you were with montp?

Oh, I'm not. As I've said before to people from Montpelier who I know - I'm sure it's all perfectly legal, but the potential risks of the government cracking down on it were too high for me to take. I'm a good boy, and pay all the taxes that I'm told to pay.

However, the idea of introducing legislation that retrospectively changes the tax situation is something that should be prevented at all costs - perhaps next year they will reintroduce the Corn Laws retrospectively too, it's only fair after all.

[ASB]

If it was true, the tax revenue could run into billions.

I imagine it does. If you assume your 3000 odd number for MP and DeGraaf is correct the average user is probably on something around 80k. Use of the scheme in general I think reduces your UK tax bill to about 2k (min wage). If the 80k were "fully taxed" then this is a "loss" of about 60 mln overall.

But beyond that are the really big numbers with bespoke schemes - and there are a lot of these. There was one case through court recently (though not DTA based) where the "loss" from one company arranging it's bonus payments in a similar manner was something like 60 mln. Doesn't take too many of those to get into staggering numbers.

[BrilloPad]

Oh, I'm not. As I've said before to people from Montpelier who I know - I'm sure it's all perfectly legal, but the potential risks of the government cracking down on it were too high for me to take. I'm a good boy, and pay all the taxes that I'm told to pay.

However, the idea of introducing legislation that retrospectively changes the tax situation is something that should be prevented at all costs - perhaps next year they will reintroduce the Corn Laws retrospectively too, it's only fair after all.

your support is much appreciated

[BrilloPad]

I imagine it does. If you assume your 3000 odd number for MP and DeGraaf is correct the average user is probably on something around 80k. Use of the scheme in general I think reduces your UK tax bill to about 2k (min wage). If the 80k were "fully taxed" then this is a "loss" of about 60 mln overall.

But beyond that are the really big numbers with bespoke schemes - and there are a lot of these. There was one case through court recently (though not DTA based) where the "loss" from one company arranging it's bonus payments in a similar manner was something like 60 mln. Doesn't take too many of those to get into staggering numbers.

I would love to know what HMRC think will get if they win for each tax year from 1987 up to 2008. though they probably are not sure themselves. and should they win quite alot will be uncollectable. and they won't win!

I wonder what there exposure to the various loan schemes is too!