BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[deckster]

I don't think this is the same JC that works for Montpelier.

That would probably explain it then

[seadog]

Looks like MontP are in court overe a very similar scheme with city traders

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...raders-bonuses

According to this recetn article they paid a massive £14.7m into the scheme last year.

[Toocan]

Looks like MontP are in court overe a very similar scheme with city traders

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...raders-bonuses

According to this recetn article they paid a massive £14.7m into the scheme last year.

I wonder how this will affect the current Montpelier BBT scheme?

[poppy01]

Looks like MontP are in court overe a very similar scheme with city traders

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...raders-bonuses

According to this recetn article they paid a massive £14.7m into the scheme last year.

this sucks man, how come they dont get the time-warp treatment

[BrilloPad]

Looks like MontP are in court overe a very similar scheme with city traders

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...raders-bonuses

According to this recetn article they paid a massive £14.7m into the scheme last year.

"Bonuses were paid into an offshore trust. Cash was then provided to their spouses as "loans"."

Sounds like the new montpelier scheme since 12th March 2008? Will be interesting to see the outcome of the case and how it will affect all the loan schemes.

[ASB]

"Bonuses were paid into an offshore trust. Cash was then provided to their spouses as "loans"."

Sounds like the new montpelier scheme since 12th March 2008? Will be interesting to see the outcome of the case and how it will affect all the loan schemes.

I think the case was partially won last year. I thought the result was that the loans from the family trust were NOT chargeable to tax - hooray I hear you all shout. However the payments into the trust were disallowed for CT purposes, so the employer instead of saving the NI and giving larger net bonuses at the same cost just got stiffed for 35% of the enlarged bonus pool. [I think it's this bit of the decision that is now being appealed].

[swede]

Letter sent to Brooks Newmark, Braintree

I've today sent my letter with some additions off to the above Conservative MP and have also enquired as to what his party's stance on this matter would be.

[swede]

This is yet another reason why writing to MPs now is important.

I have heard from a senior QC that Section 58 is a discretionary tax. There is no compulsion on HMRC to actually collect it.

In other words, it is not necessary for a future Government to repeal the legislation for this to go away. All they need to do is tell HMRC to drop it.

So please keep writing.

Is this correct regarding S58 being discretionary?

A friend of mine using the MP scheme approached HMRC via their own solicitor with regard to making a "deal" and received back the following:-

"S58 FA 2008 is current law and so we have an obligation to collect the full amount of tax and interest that is due in accordance with S58".

Any ideas?

[BrilloPad]

I wonder how this will affect the current Montpelier BBT scheme?

Apparently the other scheme was a EBT : current scheme is a BBT : seems thet are different in several subtle ways. Any tax barristers in the house?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Is this correct regarding S58 being discretionary?

A friend of mine using the MP scheme approached HMRC via their own solicitor with regard to making a "deal" and received back the following:-

"S58 FA 2008 is current law and so we have an obligation to collect the full amount of tax and interest that is due in accordance with S58".

Any ideas?

Well they would say that wouldn't they. Just like they also said they wouldn't need to take any notice of a ruling against them in the High Court.

I am just relaying the opinion of a leading QC, who believes it is discretionary.