BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[DonkeyRhubarb]

When sending the next (12 q's letter) Im assuming that in effect you are asking the mP to ask the 12 q's to Timms?

Yes, Stephen Timms.

[poppy01]

Looks good DR, will send to my MP.

One question I would like to know is why scheme promotors such as Mopt are not being held liable for a percentage of the tax bill? Afterall, we know nothing of tax law and pay experts for their advice.

If I paid a builder for advice and as a result my house fell down, that builder would be liable for the cost of repairs.

If the law is changed such that scheme promotors can be held liable, I am pretty sure they would ALL stop promoting tax planning schemes - which seems to be what HMRC want.

I wonder how 'the rich' now avoid their tax?

off she goes again.... I have no doubt now you are HMRC, given your claim you know nothing of tax law

[helen7]

off she goes again.... I have no doubt now you are HMRC, given your claim you know nothing of tax law

So you don't think Montp should be liable for some of our tax bill?? I certainly do.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

A thought crossed my mind earlier. Maybe it's been discussed already, but have we ever considered that it's in HMRC's interest for this case to draw out for years?

I was just thinking about it, we can't really land a killer blow for years, in the meantime the Revenue are demonstrating to those of us that seek to lower our tax burdens that they have retrospective powers and can make peoples lives misery. They must know that they are likely to lose this in the long run, but in the meantime they can make anyone thinking about use for example and EBT or some other scheme to think twice. They may think that losing a few million putting up their so far pretty pathetic defense is money well spent. After all, what have they got to lose? If (and hopefully when) they lose, they just make tax changes without the retrospective element. On the long shot that they win, then they'll establish precedent. They may think that losing is worthwhile for the deterrent value alone in the interim.

Maybe we're just pawns in a bigger game. It'll be interesting to hear their case come 3rd June. I'm hoping for our sakes its as weak as their arguments to date, but if it is, then I'll be even more suspicious than I am at the moment.

I'm saying this as a positive thing from our perspective. I can't see how they can win. It might be different if they had had four or five prior cases and were refining their arguments, but this is their first bite of the cherry, and the one they are most likely to lose.

I know, let's all pay up just to f#ck them off! (ok, maybe not)

I think you are absolutely spot on.

I am sure this is one of the reasons that HMRC and Treasury are fighting tooth and nail not to release any documents under FOI. These documents would probably reveal a hidden agenda.

I am sure they want to win but, even if they don't, they will have got a few year's negative PR out of this. If it puts people off using these schemes and hurts the promoters, then that's probably a minor victory in itself.

Incidentally, you are not the only person who has deduced this:

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.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=71320

[MuddyFunster]

Got a reply from Timms via my MP. Basically says HMRC were aware of the scheme back in 2001

How is Timms now stating in black and white that they knew about it in 2001, when IIRC Jane Kennedy rattled out a load of bulltulip to the commons that they only found out about it in 2007? (which we know is a blatant lie). Is their web of lies starting to unfold before them??

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Clarification

How is Timms now stating in black and white that they knew about it in 2001, when IIRC Jane Kennedy rattled out a load of bulltulip to the commons that they only found out about it in 2007? (which we know is a blatant lie). Is their web of lies starting to unfold before them??

HMRC knew about it is 2001. They have admitted this. Jane Kennedy also mentioned it.

The reference to 2007 was the claim made by Jane Kennedy that the scheme had only become a serious problem in the past year (prior to 2008). This, as we now know, was a load of BS designed to throw the spotlight off why Brannigan & Co had done sod all for 6 years.

HMRC started negotiating with Suo Motu mid-2002. The settlement was concluded March 2003.

[helen7]

HMRC started negotiating with Suo Motu mid-2002. The settlement was concluded March 2003.

Why did Montp not warn us that another similar scheme had successfully been challenged by HMRC and settled? Instead they allowed us to continue for a further 5/6 years.

I for one would have left the scheme at this point. (I guess that answers the above question).

[MajorGowen]

Who are the MP's Paying the Expenses to ???

Hello,

Went for a beer with some friends last night and one of them raised a very interesting (at least I thought so) point.

The MP's are currently falling over themselves to "pay back" the money they robbed from us. However, as they were not breaking the law and all their tax returns were deemed ok by the Revenue then who are they actually paying back?

If they pay HMRC for tax that HMRC do not believe they owe then this will just show as an overpayment on their next return and they will get the money back. Maybe that's why they are all keen to be seen paying their spoils back.

Does anyone know if this is correct, or are they paying the money somewhere else?

MajorGowen...

[johnnyguitar]

letter from Treasury

I received, via my MP, a response from the Treasury. It seems like a 'standard' response except once bit that caught my eye:

"The IR first learned of the scheme in 2001 and successfully settled enquiries with one of the original promoters of the scheme who accepted that the income should be taxed in the UK. The Revenue subsequently initiated enquiries into other users of the scheme. However, during 2007, both the number of disclosures and amounts of tax involved reached such a high level that the government decided that a legislative response was appropriate."

Is this part of the standard response everyone has been getting ? I can't understand how they can settle with some people and then go retrospective with others - doesn't seem very even-handed.

[ContractIn]

Why did Montp not warn us that another similar scheme had successfully been challenged by HMRC and settled? Instead they allowed us to continue for a further 5/6 years.

I for one would have left the scheme at this point. (I guess that answers the above question).

I agree. When I went to the meeting in Knightsbridge I was given no inckling that the scheme or similar ones were under investigation or that existing scheme users were receiving enquiry notices from HMRC.

Knowing this then I would have said thanks but no thanks and gone straight to Ltd. Went with MTM purely for convenience.