BN66 - Time to fight back: Continued

[SantaClaus]

If the Northern Rock go down and HMRC come after me, the 2 of them can fight it out, seeing as they are one and the same, i.e., the government

[fubar123]

What are the downsides of declaring bankruptcy ?

If quite a few financial sector workers are due to lose their jobs over the next year, default on mortgage payments, get their houses repossessed and end up declaring bankruptcy (with or without the aid of the new law that allows changes to historic taxation rules and subsequent enforcement), what happens to the individual ?

Is it similar to a large drop in credit rating ? With the individual unable to gain access to loans, credit cards or financing of any sort ?
Or does it go further, and stop them opening or having a bank account ?

What would debt collectors be ordered to recover at entry to a property ?
Would they leave soft furnishings and anything else that cannot be auctioned easily ? Or would they take a 'scorched earth' policy and load up everything in sight ?

I guess now is not the time to renew that season ticket or pay up front for annual insurance premiums.

[AlbionRovers]

A CTD (like National Savings or Gilts) is safer than having your money in a bank or building society.

I've got a savings account with Intelligent Finance (owned by HBOS ) but the amount is below the £35k safety net.

As an aside, it's quite funny how risk averse we all seem to be and yet we joined a scheme like MTM.

So, to clarify, anyone owing < 35K (or 70K joint) in an offset is protected by the ombudsman chappie?

[MuddyFunster]

As an aside, it's quite funny how risk averse we all seem to be and yet we joined a scheme like MTM.

I'm curious to know if it's just me (so far on this thread) who wasn't warned of any risks with this scheme. Because I went through an intermediary company and not directly with MP, I didn't get warned of any potential pitfalls. Whilst MP were giving presentations saying it might not work, I was being fed a load of bulltulip. Did this happen to anyone else?

[portseven]

I was recommended to my scheme by my Agency!

[BrilloPad]

I'm curious to know if it's just me (so far on this thread) who wasn't warned of any risks with this scheme. Because I went through an intermediary company and not directly with MP, I didn't get warned of any potential pitfalls. Whilst MP were giving presentations saying it might not work, I was being fed a load of bulltulip. Did this happen to anyone else?

I went direct. Was told it was risky - but even if montp lost would be better off than under IR35. They said they would fight it all the way to house of lords - I still hope that if it gets that far they will take it to ECHR.

[elpinar]

So, to clarify, anyone owing < 35K (or 70K joint) in an offset is protected by the ombudsman chappie?

yes - that is true

[AlbionRovers]

What about the amount above 35K already paid off?
In the event of a bank folding, is that a goner?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I went direct. Was told it was risky - but even if montp lost would be better off than under IR35. They said they would fight it all the way to house of lords - I still hope that if it gets that far they will take it to ECHR.

I wasn't specifically told it was "high risk" but given how aggressive it was, I assumed it must be.

The contracts I was getting at the time (rolling support with same company) were very dodgy from an IR35 perspective, so I decided that MTM was worth the risk.

Unfortunately, I don't think there is any protection for being mis-sold a tax avoidance scheme.

[Ratican]

The current situation

...Whilst MP were giving presentations saying it might not work, I was being fed a load of bulltulip. Did this happen to anyone else?

When MP said it might not work - they were talking about the state of law at the time (not the retrospective law they introduced this year). This existing legislation was what HMRC were planning to test through the courts last year. Presumably they thought the MP scheme DID work and they would LOSE, so they did not bring any test cases.
The retrospective change in the law is different.

The current situation is not about testing whether the scheme works or not - it is about whether it is legal to introduce retrospective legislation in this way. MP are challenging the legislation through a JR. If the judge agrees with MP that it is illegal then he will declare that the legislation is incompatible with HR legislation. This is a mechanism for getting the case to the ECoHR. I guess if it gets to Europe it will take a while.

The former MD of MP has told me that:
"Challenging the legitimacy of tax legislation is not untested and the success rate is not bad. HMRC have lost a number of battles at European level."

If we win at European level then who knows what will happen. The govt will have to repeal the retrospective aspect of the legislation (presumably)… but it may not be the end of the story – HMRC may still want to bring test cases in one last attempt to ruin us. They will probably still lose these.

Is that right? That is how I understand it. We are despised; everyone is against us (well most people). Fair enough - but we will still win this battle for the simple reason that the retrospective nature of the legislation is wrong. Anybody can see that. It is very clear.
My feelings:
HMRC >< ME ME AFTER ALL THIS IS FINISHED >

What I am going to purchase with my "savings" in order to visit the "special" investigation people: http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/car-reviews...i-1004109.html
I will spend the 2.5% interest paid to me by HMRC upgrading the Alloys.