BN66 - Time to fight back: Continued

[poppy01]

One of my contacts who knew some people in the Suo Motu scheme basically confirmed the same thing:

=========================================
Yes 30% was what colleagues with Suo Motu paid. Until shortly before the settlement they were unaware that they were on a different scheme to those of us with MTM. It seems that early respondents to the Suo Motu web page were directed to MTM's scheme but after [name removed] and [name removed] fell out with MTM they continued to recruit using the Suo Motu name for their own copycat scheme.
=========================================

I have to confess, if I was offered that now I'd take it. I wonder how hmrc can justify offering those terms to one scheme and not another when they are exactly the same.

I wonder what suo motu got in return for these generous terms.

I always wondered how my name suddenly popped up on HMRC's montpelier radar without any questions being asked.

[scott_free]

I have to confess, if I was offered that now I'd take it. I wonder how hmrc can justify offering those terms to one scheme and not another when they are exactly the same.

I wonder what suo motu got in return for these generous terms.

I always wondered how my name suddenly popped up on HMRC's montpelier radar without any questions being asked.

Just to confirm - 30% of the amount due to HMRC ?, I'd take that too and move on

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I have to confess, if I was offered that now I'd take it. I wonder how hmrc can justify offering those terms to one scheme and not another when they are exactly the same.

I wonder what suo motu got in return for these generous terms.

I always wondered how my name suddenly popped up on HMRC's montpelier radar without any questions being asked.

The situation is completely different. Those terms were offered before the law was changed retrospectively. I suspect even back in 2002 when that deal was done, HMRC knew they were on thin ice.

Don't you mean what did HMRC get in return for those terms? And I think you answered your own question. The gamekeepers turned poachers and sold their souls to the

It's ironic that some people are now turning to Warr and his cronies for help when it was those same people who blew the whistle on the scheme. I seem to recall that the SuoMotu duo helped themselves to MTM's client database before they slunk off into the night, and I think you can guess whose hands that ended up in!

[poppy01]

HMRC if your listening, do the deal, avoid the embarrasing JR
... a bird in the hand etc....

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Just to confirm - 30% of the amount due to HMRC ?, I'd take that too and move on

Not sure if it was 30% of the amount due or 30% of the trust income but either way it's a lot less that they are trying to sting us for now.

I think it's possible if the JR goes in our favour, and we get a change of government, that HMRC may be advised to offer similar terms by a new administration just to close the matter. I think it's safe to assume that it is unlikely that the case will be resolved within the next 18 months.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

SuoMotu clarification

Apparently the deal was 30% of the trust income on top of any tax/nic already paid.

[poppy01]

The situation is completely different. Those terms were offered before the law was changed retrospectively. I suspect even back in 2002 when that deal was done, HMRC knew they were on thin ice.

Don't you mean what did HMRC get in return for those terms? And I think you answered your own question. The gamekeepers turned poachers and sold their souls to the

It's ironic that some people are now turning to Warr and his cronies for help when it was those same people who blew the whistle on the scheme. I seem to recall that the SuoMotu duo helped themselves to MTM's client database before they slunk off into the night, and I think you can guess whose hands that ended up in!

Your right, that was a typo. I've always been convinced early scheme members were shopped, but was a bit nervous about saying it. The suomotu duo as you name them were always a bit litigious, and I guess I could be wrong. I was wondering, could hmrc go back on the deal they did with the suomotu clients now they've changed the law retrospectively? I am particularly p'ed off as my involvement was in the same time period as the suomotu deal.

[smalldog]

I'd take 30% too.....also then saves me having to pay MP so not a lot in it...

[scott_free]

Apparently the deal was 30% of the trust income on top of any tax/nic already paid.

ahh, so basically no interest charged - thought that was to good to be true

[DonkeyRhubarb]

ahh, so basically no interest charged - thought that was to good to be true

I think many of us are liable for a bit more than 30% of the trust income but you are right it's not that great a deal, and it certainly wasn't for the people at the time who had no choice in the matter. They either had to accept it or they were on their own. I don't think they would have had to pay any interest anyway as it had only been running one year.