BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[BrilloPad]

One step ahead of you, already added it.

Sterling work Sir

[ASB]

Out of interest is there any date for the JR yet? I seem to recall it was supposed to be listed for early January but I haven't been able to find anything.

[BrilloPad]

Out of interest is there any date for the JR yet? I seem to recall it was supposed to be listed for early January but I haven't been able to find anything.

Still no news. Its very odd as supposed to be heard within 3 months of being applied for. I guess the courts are very busy.

[CanPayButWouldRatherNot]

tax return in today ...thanks MP keep up the good work

Just had my tax return back today.

Thanks MP (NW/JD/TW et al) keep up the good work


...interesting text at the bottom of the tax return. The summary of which is

Cheers
CPBWRN

[ContractIn]

Sterling work Sir

Yes, I would just like to second that. Some excellent and informative posts from DR and co recently.

I'm no expert and have been keeping an open mind on our chances but thanks to DR's diligent research I am feeling much more confident.

[BrilloPad]

Does anybody know if Montpelier confirms that they will appeal on your behalf upon receipt of email/correspondence?

I sent all my stuff off electronically on the 20Dec08 asking for confirmation that they will be appealing on my behalf and have received no reply.

I have also chased it since then without success.

I appreciate that they are very busy but just want to be sure that they have my stuff and will be appealing on my behalf....

E-Mail was sent to TQ,NW & JD

Thanks

And Thanks again to all the very positive contributions to this forum.

Just to cofirm I have spoken to BD and an appeal has gone in.

montp are incredibly busy : but so far not a single deadline has been missed. HMRC tactics of overload are just not working.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Pricewaterhouse Coopers

Just heard from my contact there that they have applied for a JR on behalf of property developer clients.

[Fog]

Just heard from my contact there that they have applied for a JR on behalf of property developer clients.

Looks like the snowball is rolling - good news! Do you think they will join forces or are there sufficient variations to have multiple JR's?

Does anyone here understand the process enough? Will this speed up this review with more requests?

Thanks loads for recent updates DK et al - very encouraging - need to win more than ever with contract due to finish in Feb

[scubadiver]

Response from MP

I wrote to my MP a few months ago and she passed my letter onto the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Stephen Timms, for his response. Major highlights are as follows:

"As Jane Kennedy indicated during the Parliamentary debate on the Finance Bill, section 58 prevents a tax avoidance scheme, one of the purposes of which was to abuse the UK's Double Taxation Treaties. The scheme was also set out to circumvent legislation introduced in 1987 for the same purpose and which itself was retrospective in nature. By retrospectively clarifying the 1987 legislation, section 58 makes it clear that this type of avoidance does not work and never has done.

The Government does not believe that the scheme achieved its purpose since the 1987 legislation clearly applied to it. However, during 2007 both the number of scheme users and the amounts of tax invovled reached such a high level that the Government decided that a legislative response was appropriate.

The Government has always limited the use of retrospection as far as possible, using it for the worst cases of avoidance to ensure fairness and certainty for all taxpayers. That continues to be Government policy. In exceptional circumstance, the Government reserves the right to use retrospection, as in this instance, where it is fair, proportionate and in the public interest to do so. Retrospective legislation does not in itself contravene the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Government is aware of the Judicial Review procedings that have been instigated. As you will understand, I can make no further comment on this matter."

The arguments against the points made have been pretty well rehearsed on this forum so I won't go into those again. I am however looking forward to submitting an FoI request to HMRC and the Treasury once the dust has settled to see who knew what/when - we won't get any information about individual cases but I'm sure there is an interesting briefing note that went to the Finance Secretary from HMRC and subsequent discussions about developments. Either HMRC laid out their plans and explained the perils of retrospective legislation or they were economical with the truth and some Labour politicians are going to start feeling as though their staff didn't give them the best briefing.

Not that anyone is going to get fired obviously... just take a look at the massive failings in defence procurement where £bns are routinely wasted and all that happens is people are promoted or moved onto another department.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Either HMRC laid out their plans and explained the perils of retrospective legislation or they were economical with the truth and some Labour politicians are going to start feeling as though their staff didn't give them the best briefing.

This is what Treasury officials told the Treasury Committee when the measure was first discussed.

http://www.publications.parliament.u...sy/430/430.pdf

99. Treasury officials told us that:

Following the introduction of the disclosure rules in 2004, it was disclosed that a number of individuals, particularly in the property industry, had been taking a different interpretation from that which had been announced in 1987 and were continuing, without any active presence in the Isle of Man and only having income in the UK, to be claiming that 99% of their income was effectively covered by the Isle of Man double tax treaty. The action that has been announced here is retrospective. It confirms what was set out quite clearly in 1987 and what was intended by the Isle of Man treaty when it was entered into.

At no point during the passage of the Bill did the Government ever mention that HMRC already had several hundred contractors under enquiry dating back as far as 2003!!!

Someone was being economical with the truth, that's for sure.