BN66 - Time to fight back: Continued

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Are you sure it peaked before 2007 ? A lot of folk here signed up in 2007.

D

No but (unlike Jane Kennedy) I will get my facts straight before sending.

PS. bear in mind that a lot of other folks here like me left years ago.

[normalbloke]

Excellent... go for it.

[Toocan]

HMRC case fatally flawed

From Jane "the comedian" Kennedy:

Any such retrospective measures target only artificial schemes that have no commercial justification at all.

Bad call Jane - the MTM scheme we were on was not artificial and did have commercial justification. This was covered by the initial presentation that MTM made to us all.

That's not to say the property version didn't fit this description.

[Toocan]

Comments please.
...

The scheme was fully disclosed to HMRC in September 2004 in accordance with the new disclosure rules for tax avoidance schemes.

MTM were talking to HMRC before 2004 - as I recall they were told the details but couldn't seem to get a handle on it.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

MTM were talking to HMRC before 2004 - as I recall they were told the details but couldn't seem to get a handle on it.

Good point. I will reword or drop the disclosure bit.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

DeGraaf

Do we have any DeGraaf users lurking?

Anyone know how many people were in their scheme in 2007?

I am just wondering if Jane Kennedy's reference to the "latest version of the scheme" could be referring to a different promoter than MP.

[BrilloPad]

Do we have any DeGraaf users lurking?

Anyone know how many people were in their scheme in 2007?

I am just wondering if Jane Kennedy's reference to the "latest version of the scheme" could be referring to a different promoter than MP.

I thought most other schemes were loan? How many others were double taxation?

I bet you are right - just me getting old and

[Tynos]

Hi

Another long term Montpelier scheme user and lurker here. Thanks for all the info over the past months guys.

I have great respect for Montp, they've been true to their word over the years. My first relevant SA return was enquired into by HMRC a few months after the normal 12 month date. Montp said they'd appeal it upto the Lords, both in respect of the late opening of the enquiry and to defend the scheme. But of course HMRC didn't push it and just kept us all on tenderhooks for 5 or so years. I think it's despicable that the govt then had to change the law retrospectively rather than pursue test cases.

I have high expectations that we will eventually win, though I haven't got the cash to pay my full liability, so I've got my fingers crossed too. I spent a fair bit on private education for my kids, saving the govt money in the process, but I've now pulled them out into state schooling. I also had full private Health cover, but I've stopped that now too. Unfortunately my limited savings are in shares, so if HMRC demand their pound of flesh we'd have to sell our home. Not a position to be in at any time, never mind during a house price and stock market crash.

But it could be worse. If my job was a Tax Inspector, and I had to bankrupt families by using backdated changes to the Tax Law, then I really wouldn't be able to sleep at nights.

Tynos.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I thought most other schemes were loan? How many others were double taxation?

I bet you are right - just me getting old and

DeGraaf is the the only other DTA contractor scheme I'm aware of. They started a lot later than MP and my guess is that they are much smaller in scale.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Letter to CIOT - final version

I am going with this. The figures may not be 100% accurate but they are close enough.

============

Dear Mr Goulding,

Finance Bill 2008: Clause 55 and retrospection

I am writing with reference to the FAX you received from Jane Kennedy on 8th July 2008, which was published on the CIOT website. I have reason to believe that you may have been seriously misinformed, and I would like the opportunity to put the record straight.

May I draw your attention to the following claim made by Jane Kennedy:

“Last year HMRC’s disclosure regime revealed that the latest version of the scheme was being used on an unprecedented scale.”

The scheme to which she refers first began operating in 2001. Even before the disclosure rules were introduced, HMRC had no difficulty identifying users of the scheme. In 2003, HMRC opened enquiries on the first 150 or so users, including myself, and the scheme promoter duly responded to all the points they raised. By the following year 2004, the number of users under enquiry had grown to around 400.

Whilst it is true that take up of the scheme continued to rise, it peaked before 2007. Many people like myself took the decision to drop out when tax returns came under enquiry and HMRC stated their intention to litigate. Once it became widely known that the scheme was being investigated it became more difficult for the promoter to attract new users. Although there was another company offering a similar scheme, this was on a much smaller scale.

I trust you will agree that it seems very strange that one of the Government’s main arguments for applying retrospection was that they had only recently become aware of the unprecedented scale of the problem, when in fact by last year HMRC had already placed most of the 1000 or so users under enquiry. They had ample opportunity to close the loophole in successive budgets before the situation got out of hand but instead chose to take no action for 5 years.

Yours sincerely,