BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[BrilloPad]

Back on November 14th I received an email 'out of the blue' from 'Nomen Nescio - nobody@dizum.com' directing me to this forum.

I have no idea who the sender was or how he got my email address and indeed knew that I was on the MP scheme, but I assume that some kind of list must exist.

And many thanks for being pro-active and delurking! Once montpelier ltd sent out an email which was supposed to bcced to 800 people. But they sent it in the to section.

I always knew it would come in handy : but I cant take the credit for the sending! However once again those who have valiantly spent hours wish to remain anonymous! But whoever you are : you are a top chap!

[normalbloke]

Is this really what we are after?

The deal wasn't very good but it was still a deal.

Think about it. In 2003 they do a deal with one scheme who approached them. The same year they open enquiries on 200 Montpelier users. The scheme grows year on year from 2003 onwards. What do they do? Nothing for 5 years.

Why didn't they offer us the same deal in 2003 or 2004 or 2005 or 2006 or 2007?

That isn't going to look too good for HMRC in court!!!

I'm not sure I'd want to settle for the deal the Suo Moto punters had - especially at this stage. If HMRC then capitulate and say "Right.. fine, you can have the same deal" , how many of us would say "OK"? As DR said, the deal wasnt great and it would still mean a hell of a hit for some people. I'm not even sure HMRC are in the deal offering game anyway (I thought it was up to us to suggest/broker deals), especially these days.

Now if we had evidence that some returns using the scheme went through on the nod and the DTA was accepted fully, that's an entirely different kettle of fish. We could then shout "Treat us all the same!" as loud as we wanted. I thought there was a hint that some property developers returns went through and were accepted -earlier on in the thread? or am I wishful thinking??

[BrilloPad]

There is no deal on the table : and has never been discussed by montpelier.

There was some bn66 website where they tried to round up montpelier clients to arrange a deal : but have never even approached HMRC.

[BrilloPad]

I may have missed this (sorry), but can someone explain exactly what this new news/evidence actually means to us and our case? Aren't the HMRC allowed to do whatever they wish with whomever? Each persons case is his own individual case? I am hoping we can use this but I am just wondering what the judge might say....thinking how he seemed to say retrospective laws are fine in the recent JR denial.

HMRC claim not to have heard of this scheme before 2004 : and have told parliament as such.

Furthermore they cannot treat us differently : go back and read the circular letter from mid December. In particular reason (a).

The JR denial did not seem to me to depend on the retrospective nature but on the nature of partnerships i.e. a technicality. This will come across much better in verbal submission.

[HMRCAreCrooks]

HMRC claim not to have heard of this scheme before 2004 : and have told parliament as such.

Furthermore they cannot treat us differently : go back and read the circular letter from mid December. In particular reason (a).

The JR denial did not seem to me to depend on the retrospective nature but on the nature of partnerships i.e. a technicality. This will come across much better in verbal submission.

Tell me if I am wrong, but I thought HMRC had been in contact with MP as early as 2001?

[BrilloPad]

Tell me if I am wrong, but I thought HMRC had been in contact with MP as early as 2001?

You are right! Its a shame you are not an MP : you could stand up in parliament and say what a bunch of crooks and liars HMRC are. Soon we will find an MP who will do so........

[Toocan]

why is it just us little guys they are playing hardball with....

is it cos we are an easy target? is it because if they introduced retrospection that hit the likes of Vodafone, there really would be a corporate rush to the lifeboats to get out of UK plc.

I’ve given some though to this. HMRC are playing at being pals with the big companies and rich individuals – but, in the round, we do not fit into either of these categories. We are something of a fly in the anti-avoidance team’s eye. They can’t sit ALL of us down and negotiate and are fully aware that their rule book was lacking.

They are almost certainly kicking themselves for drafting the 1987 legislation to close down just the “Padmore exemption” and nothing more. It did exactly what they wanted it to do. Perhaps they feel some measure of guilt that the scheme which Montpelier marketed is described (almost entirely) as a valid avoidance scheme in their publicly viewable manuals. In a way, HMRC marketed this scheme themselves. That has to hurt.

It’s a little like telling someone that if they press a button, a treat will fall out – then being annoyed when that same person presses the button.

Then there is the complete lack of consistency from the senior HMRC officers. Have a look at this (part of a Q&A’s session):

David Prever: Finally, from Derek Allen in Scotland, from the Institute of Chartered Accountants – you’ll like this one – ‘What in HMRC’s eyes is the difference between acceptable tax avoidance and unacceptable tax avoidance?’ Derek says, ‘I know it’s a difficult question and easy to give a cliché answer, but it’s an important one.’

Dave Hartnett: Well, and it’s not the first time Derek’s asked me this, either. Let me have a go at an age-old question, which even the courts, I think, have found incredibly difficult. For me, unacceptable tax avoidance is marked out by aggression, and artificiality, and secrecy. And they’re things nobody wants in a tax system in the 21st century. So, we’re going to address those vigorously wherever we find them, litigating where we need to. What about any other form of avoidance about which people are open, and show us what they’re doing? Well, I think ‘planning’ might be a better word. But, you know, ‘Is it planning that works?’ is the first question. And there’s then an issue about ‘Is it planning that an Exchequer – a tax administration – can actually afford?’ And if we can’t, then we will go to our Ministers with recommendations as to what should happen. But it’s important to remember just one other thing about planning – tax planning can be really important because tax systems can sometimes introduce economic distortions which are unintended, which businesses need to plan around, and generally, that’s a perfectly acceptable thing to do.

[SantaClaus]

The deal wasn't very good but it was still a deal.

Think about it. In 2003 they do a deal with one scheme who approached them. The same year they open enquiries on 200 Montpelier users. The scheme grows year on year from 2003 onwards. What do they do? Nothing for 5 years.

Why didn't they offer us the same deal in 2003 or 2004 or 2005 or 2006 or 2007?

That isn't going to look too good for HMRC in court!!!

Thank you DR!

This is the main point. HMRC have not properly applied the use of the word "fairness" that the govt. so like to use at every opportunity.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I'm not sure I'd want to settle for the deal the Suo Moto punters had - especially at this stage.

Definitely not. It was crap but I don't think the promoters were in the least bit interested in doing the best by their clients.

However, the fact that the settlement was carefully thought out by HMRC and fully documented (including tiered settlement terms) is damning in itself.

How can HMRC justify negotiating a comprehensive settlement with one scheme and then allow another scheme to carry on escalating for 5 years?

How do they explain the "lost years"? This goes much further than mere incompetence.

[poppy01]

Definitely not. It was crap but I don't think the promoters were in the least bit interested in doing the best by their clients.

However, the fact that the settlement was carefully thought out by HMRC and fully documented (including tiered settlement terms) is damning in itself.

How can HMRC justify negotiating a comprehensive settlement with one scheme and then allow another scheme to carry on escalating for 5 years?

How do they explain the "lost years"? This goes much further than mere incompetence.

Just for the record, since you now have the doco, what exactly was the 'deal', am I right in assumption it was. no ni & 30% trust income, what about interest? its the interest that really sticks in my craw, leave it 6 years, change law retrospectively, AND CHARGE INTEREST.