BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[NickNick]

nice to know that if we ever have to pay anything back all the money is going to a good cause:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7898900.stm

Sounds like a good cause to me.

[poppy01]

Sounds like a good cause to me.

wont hear a bad word about the European Court of Human Rights, I might be relying on them to save my ass

[smalldog]

wont hear a bad word about the European Court of Human Rights, I might be relying on them to save my ass

ok, so does that mean we might get compensation too??

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Letter requests

Still getting a constant trickle. Now up to 170 copies of the template sent out.

We are getting good feedback from some MPs eg. John Redwood, Edward Davey, Ian Taylor.

Most Labour MPs don't want to know.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Letter to Stephen Timms

I am drafting a letter to Timms.

If anyone would like to see it, email me. I would welcome any comments.

[helen7]

I am drafting a letter to Timms.

If anyone would like to see it, email me. I would welcome any comments.

Why retrospective clarification has not been used to close other loopholes. (Including the new one mentioned in his Times article).

Where a scheme is deemed invalid, why are scheme providers not being held accountable for giving bad tax advice? Why are tax payers who took professional advice being held accountable for the full bill?

And most obviously why it took them 7 years to close the 'loophole' and continued to aloow people to use it.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Why retrospective clarification has not been used to close other loopholes. (Including the new one mentioned in his Times article).

Forget the word "clarification". This is a change in the law. If it wasn't, why would they need legislation.

In our case, they have made it retrospective partly because HMRC screwed up and also to make an example out of us.

Where a scheme is deemed invalid, why are scheme providers not being held accountable for giving bad tax advice? Why are tax payers who took professional advice being held accountable for the full bill?

Until recently you couldn't expect a scheme provider to anticipate retrospective changes in the law. Of course, all that's changed now.

And most obviously why it took them 7 years to close the 'loophole' and continued to aloow people to use it.

It is called maladministration.

[SantaClaus]

Why retrospective clarification has not been used to close other loopholes. (Including the new one mentioned in his Times article).

Where a scheme is deemed invalid, why are scheme providers not being held accountable for giving bad tax advice? Why are tax payers who took professional advice being held accountable for the full bill?

And most obviously why it took them 7 years to close the 'loophole' and continued to aloow people to use it.

Yes, but we were warned upfront by Montpelier that the scheme could fail if the govt. brought in retrospective legislation.

[BrilloPad]

Yes, but we were warned upfront by Montpelier that the scheme could fail if the govt. brought in retrospective legislation.

Personally I was never warned of that : but they said they would fight it all the way to the high court.

[SantaClaus]

Personally I was never warned of that : but they said they would fight it all the way to the high court.

Brillo, I remember them saying it in the original seminar in the Isle Of Man that I attended.

But they did say they would fight it all the way to the high court.