BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[BrilloPad]

I like your thinking Brillo!

Maybe we could have a thread on here that details the steps to take, what to do and what to say if you get an illegal visit from HMRC.

That would be really useful to all the members and HMRC would soon stop using bullyboy tactics.

Basically it is as DR said - dont let them in and tell them to f**k off. Personally I would also call the police - then montpelier - then HMRC head office. Just be honest with them - you owe NOTHING and this is harassment.

The legal stuff can come later. IMO it is a great pity that in this country they dont award punitive damages for this sort of total mess up.

[BrilloPad]

I spoke to a partner at KPMG who advised me that they did advised a large number of property developers about the DTA loophole but set up the scheme to use independant trustees and administrators in IOM & Jersey.

Consequently they have no responsibility to look after clients who get caught up in the BN66 retrospective issue and are leaving then to deal with their own accountants and lawyers to make appeals etc.

I will be making more attempts to try and locate other property developers caught up in this matter.

Many thanks - any info will be much appreciated.

[BrilloPad]

I'm unsure. I can't find a simple reference. It is not explicit in the registration guidance (which was changed in 2006 anyway to bring NI into the scope of the disclosure regime). If memory serves the announcement was made in December '04 and it may apply from then or the beginning of that financial year. Te be fair the announcement didn't say "would backdate application" but "could backdate".

Typical bit of woolliness really.

It can always be retrospectively clarified...........

[MuddyFunster]

Out of interest, has anyone used a loan based scheme. If so, have HMRC been sniffing around?

I know a group of people that were threatened with 100% of liability fines if they didn't pay up. HMRC said that it didn't work, but their reasons for that (such as the company in the middle of the transaction didn't exist) were utter nonsense. One person I know paid on account (if that's the correct term) and was told he would get his money back if it was found that the scheme did work. Several years later (over 5 now) and absolutely nothing has happened.

[MuddyFunster]

Reply from Vince Cable MP (Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer)

Vince Cable is my local MP and he replied to a letter I sent him a couple of weeks ago:

At the outset we accepted entirely the need for the Government to legislate against tax avoidance. We appreciated that the provision was designed to prevent tax avoidance by United Kingdom taxpayers on income from foreign partnerships using Isle of Man or Channel Islands partnerships.

However, while we supported the Government’s efforts to deal with tax avoidance, we believe that, in principle, tax changes should apply prospectively and not retrospectively as set out under the measure.

Rewriting of legislation in such a way does not meet the legitimate expectation test. It sends out a damaging signal about the stability of the UK tax system, whereby business transactions made under one set of laws can then become subject to a different tax outcome at a later date due to the retrospective change in the rules.

Taxpayers are entitled to understand the implications of a transaction that they enter into. Treating the provision as “always having had effect” runs contrary to Parliament’s intent over the past 30 years, which is to lay down rules whereby the tax effect of particular transactions can be changed or advance warning can be given of a change in the tax treatment in clearly identified circumstances. It was for this reason that the Liberal Democrats sought to move an amendment to the clause, however this was defeated.

-----------------------------------
An MP talking sense!? Wow...

[BrilloPad]

I know a group of people that were threatened with 100% of liability fines if they didn't pay up. HMRC said that it didn't work, but their reasons for that (such as the company in the middle of the transaction didn't exist) were utter nonsense. One person I know paid on account (if that's the correct term) and was told he would get his money back if it was found that the scheme did work. Several years later (over 5 now) and absolutely nothing has happened.

Of course those in montp are welcome to pay on account and will get back their money when montp win.

I wonder why HMRC did not tell them they would be better off with a CTD?

[MuddyFunster]

Of course those in montp are welcome to pay on account and will get back their money when montp win.

I wonder why HMRC did not tell them they would be better off with a CTD?

I did ask why he didn't get a CTD and he said he'd never heard of them. I don't know how long CTDs have been around. This scheme was running in 2002 when I started with MP. I was going to go on the loan scheme but was told the MP scheme was better.

[SantaClaus]

Basically it is as DR said - dont let them in and tell them to f**k off. Personally I would also call the police - then montpelier - then HMRC head office. Just be honest with them - you owe NOTHING and this is harassment.

The legal stuff can come later. IMO it is a great pity that in this country they dont award punitive damages for this sort of total mess up.

Thanks Brillo. Hopefully everyone will see this and know they dont have to let them in.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Vince Cable is my local MP and he replied to a letter I sent him a couple of weeks ago:

At the outset we accepted entirely the need for the Government to legislate against tax avoidance. We appreciated that the provision was designed to prevent tax avoidance by United Kingdom taxpayers on income from foreign partnerships using Isle of Man or Channel Islands partnerships.

However, while we supported the Government’s efforts to deal with tax avoidance, we believe that, in principle, tax changes should apply prospectively and not retrospectively as set out under the measure.

Rewriting of legislation in such a way does not meet the legitimate expectation test. It sends out a damaging signal about the stability of the UK tax system, whereby business transactions made under one set of laws can then become subject to a different tax outcome at a later date due to the retrospective change in the rules.

Taxpayers are entitled to understand the implications of a transaction that they enter into. Treating the provision as “always having had effect” runs contrary to Parliament’s intent over the past 30 years, which is to lay down rules whereby the tax effect of particular transactions can be changed or advance warning can be given of a change in the tax treatment in clearly identified circumstances. It was for this reason that the Liberal Democrats sought to move an amendment to the clause, however this was defeated.

-----------------------------------
An MP talking sense!? Wow...

Excellent response. I have seen him interviewed on Ch4 News a few times and he always sounds like he knows what he's talking about, unlike Darling and Osborne.

[MajorGowen]

Surcharge Notices...

Hello,

Having received my Closure Notices on the 7th November I have now received two "Late Payment: Surcharge Notice" forms dated the 7th November telling me I have a 5% surcharge because Hector "...did not receive your full payment by 28 days after the due date nor by 6 months after it...".

As I only received the CN on the 7th November their maths seems to be a bit out. When I rang them to complain they could not even work out why I had been sent one and said these weren;t due until the 10th December

I hope their Christmas meal isn't in a brewery as I bet there won't be a lot of alcohol around....

MajorGowen...