BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Still lots of people using loan schemes. It will be interesting to see how HMRC attack those.

Question for you. Would you have still quit the loan scheme if HMRC had not used retrospection?

I'm sure HMRC's tactics have cost scheme promoters many current and prospective clients. Even when we win it will take years and the damage will already have been inflicted.

How many promoters would have the resources like MP to challenge primary legislation? Many would just shut up shop at the first sign of trouble.

[Squicker]

Many thanks for de-lurking

What years were you in the montp scheme? Are you still using them?

We still awaiting HMRC sjkeleton arguments. I bet they are the usual rubbish......

I was with them four active years in total.

Ben

[BrilloPad]

Question for you. Would you have still quit the loan scheme if HMRC had not used retrospection?

I'm sure HMRC's tactics have cost scheme promoters many current and prospective clients. Even when we win it will take years and the damage will already have been inflicted.

How many promoters would have the resources like MP to challenge primary legislation? Many would just shut up shop at the first sign of trouble.

I had already decided to leave before retrospection. It was partly the lack of consultation by montp : but mostly I think these schemes feel dodgy and it is easy to go back years. You hardly need retrospection with these schemes IMO.

Also some of the other loan schemes have gone badly wrong. The loan payments are being demanded back.

[Toocan]

Even when they lose the JR, they will appeal to try and drag it out as long as possible to maximise the negative PR.

If they are allowed to appeal....

[Toocan]

Still lots of people using loan schemes. It will be interesting to see how HMRC attack those.

Perhaps they will introduce a "loan tax" that will mean that your granny must complete a tax return if she lends you a tenner.

[BrilloPad]

Perhaps they will introduce a "loan tax" that will mean that your granny must complete a tax return if she lends you a tenner.

My granny did actually lend me £50 in 1989. Will the retrospection apply that far back? Maybe I should not be admitting that on forum : but I reckon I am safe : HMRC are unlikely to spot it.

[Toocan]

HMRC strategy is fatally flawed

HMRC know they will probably lose eventually but I don't think they are bothered. I have long believed that this legislation was not about us per se but about sending a message to scheme promoters and potential punters, and judging by other threads on CUK it is working. Every time someone asks about a scheme, people reply saying look at those poor buggers on the BN66 thread.

Even when they lose the JR, they will appeal to try and drag it out as long as possible to maximise the negative PR.

In a way, HMRC will (rightly IMO) view defeat as a victory because they will have put the majority of people off using schemes.

You may be correct about HMRC’s motivation, but the strategy is fatally flawed.

Up until this point, HMRC had the sword of retrospective legislation that they could use to threaten taxpayers. If Montpelier win the judicial review, and given the lack of an HMRC case that appears likely, then that sword will be broken.

At that point, there will be no threat of retrospective legislation – it will be a forward only game from there on.

And what can HMRC do? Will they go back to Parliament and ask them to modify the Human Rights Act? Which political party will want to be identified as the one that reduced a person’s rights? Will zanu-labour take away our human rights (appropriate moniker if they did)?

Remember, HMRC put themselves in this position. They knew about the Montpelier scheme within a few months of its inception. They knew from the information that they acquired or traded from ex-Montpelier employees. They knew from the disclosure regime when that came in. They could have closed it down if they didn’t like it. They’re lack of action, or complete institutional incompetence, is no excuse for retrospective legislation.

Whatever HMRC though they were doing when they decided to treat us politically, they will not get any extra tax from us. Ultimately they will validate the tax avoidance industry, and get a “bloody nose” in the process. You’d think they’d have learnt from Jeff and Diana Jones. It must be getting cold in YouKnowWho’s offices…

[Toocan]

My granny did actually lend me £50 in 1989. Will the retrospection apply that far back? Maybe I should not be admitting that on forum : but I reckon I am safe : HMRC are unlikely to spot it.

Only if she was "offshore" at the time she lent it - on holiday, perhaps in Spain. Your granny will then be classed as an "offshore capital asset" and you will have to calculate a benefit in kind charge.

I hope she never made ("Illicitly manufactured") a birthday cake for you because that would attract an import tarriff. If there were candles ("improvised explosive device") on the cake (the kind that relight themselves) then you're in real trouble!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

HMRC's real motive

However, because section 58 uses HMRC’s ‘‘nuclear option’’ of fully retrospective legislation, it may have a deterrent effect beyond the specific structures it purports to close down.

...

Whatever the justification of the extreme measure in section 58 FA 2008, HMRC would probably not be displeased if it is regarded as a warning shot across the bows of taxpayers who are thinking of using particularly aggressive planning schemes and of the practitioners who devise them.

http://www.freshfields.com/publicati.../nov08/BTR.pdf

[SantaClaus]

Only if she was "offshore" at the time she lent it - on holiday, perhaps in Spain. Your granny will then be classed as an "offshore capital asset" and you will have to calculate a benefit in kind charge.

I hope she never made ("Illicitly manufactured") a birthday cake for you because that would attract an import tarriff. If there were candles ("improvised explosive device") on the cake (the kind that relight themselves) then you're in real trouble!

I hope it wasnt a spacecake either You sure that granny hasn't been on regular trips to Amsterdam?