BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[DonkeyRhubarb]

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).

It was not challenged by HMRC.

Suo Motu approached HMRC to ask for a deal. I think Jones and Morris lost their bottle, and they were also embroiled in a legal dispute with Montp. Anyway, whatever their reasons, they had decided they didn't want to continue running the scheme so they wanted the matter settled.

Of course, HMRC said they would ultimately challenge the scheme but that was just part of their negotiating position.

If HMRC had successfully challenged the scheme do you think they would have needed retrospective legislation?

[seadog]

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

I was led to believe it was a tried and tested scheme which had been going for many years without any queries from HMRC, and this was in 2004, well after the Suo Moto case had been settled.

If this goes belly up and we end up having to pay all HMRC demands I for one will be condsidering taking action against my profesional advisors who did nothing to advise me of the previous history to this scheme or the danger and implications if the scheme failed.

One of the blogs on the Guardian Tax Gap forums thought that the providers such as MontP should be liable for some penalties. They pursuade us to enter into these schemes take a fee and then lose nothing if it all fails.

As a previous blogger has said I would not have joined had I know what had been given the full facts.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

It was obvious that HMRC would eventually look into the scheme. Yes, people should have been told that enquiries had been made but it is unrealistic to think that HMRC would have just completely ignored a scheme like this.

In some ways it is unfortunate that the scheme was so watertight. If HMRC thought they had any chance of winning in Court, they would have litigated.

The retrospective legislation is, in effect, an admission on their part that they knew they would lose.

Now this creates a big problem for them. If it gets to court and a Judge rules that the scheme was lawful, then that would cast serious doubt over the legitimacy of the legislation.

[OnYourBikeGB]

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).

As someone who was around at the time, I remember the Suo Moto scheme quite clearly, and I met him at a presentation. He was employed as a consultant by MontP and gave presentations on their behalf. Whatever happened, he did a runner. I'm not sure what can be said as MontP have been trying to drag him into courts for years, but basically, I was contacted by him as were others on the scheme at the time. I didn't realise at first that a split had occurred, but he obviously had my details. After his own scheme collapsed and he did a deal with HMRC, the letters started arriving for everyone who remained on the MontP side very quickly. Now I could be kind and say that they were lucky with the random sweeps through the returns and just by coincidence found so many people, but I won't. As DR correctly points out, it wasn't challenged by HMRC, he bottled it and did a deal. Prior to this MontP dragged him through an initial hearing in the IOM court.
I saw one letter he wrote about that (I knew someone who stayed on his scheme), where he completely misrepresented what happened, claiming he had had a very successful day. In reality, he was hammered by MontP on just about everything. His one success was that he retained the name Suo Moto. MontP didn't want it as they considered it tainted. This happened before the collapse of his scheme.
If I remember correctly, and I'm sure MontP could confirm, he had to change Suo Moto as MontP had established the IPR. It was the changed scheme that collapsed. AJ claimed that he discovered it was not valid based on a tax opinion from counsel, which he claimed also applied to MontP. I think its still avaliable to view on his IR35Amnesty web site.
So when Mr Timms makes his claims in his standard letter about how they settled with one of the original promoters and pursued the users of it, he is 'bending' the truth / talking sh#te (delete as appropriate). Jones never represented any of us, we were never on his scheme, his scheme was not the same as ours.
That's how I recall it, I'm sure there are others out there that could flesh this out a bit.

[bollox]

DPA/Enquiries

Just received my DPA bundle from HMRC, there's a lot in it and too much to digest in one sitting...

however one thing which is interesting is a doco which shows the years for which enquiries were opened by the compliance section..

I've been in the scheme since late 2001 and remember (its a long time ago) getting letters from HMRC saying they didnt agree with the returns, but can't remember getting an official "we're openening an enquiry", for the early years at least...

Anyway looks like they only opened oficial enquiries into years 2004-5 onwards...

I'm quite surprised by this as, even if we lose (which we won't), then this means that MontP have another avenue of attack on quite a large lump of outstanding wedge i.e. them not opening the enquiry within the timeframe even tho it was fully disclosed on the return....

My understanding is that they have a year to open an enquiry ater the return has been submitted, unless something was willfully withheld or there was evidence of fraud, in which case they can open a 'discovery' enquiry.

the sheet even has a column with the final date for the enquiry to be opened, which barring certain parties jaunting back in time in a tardis are long gone (they've done it once i suppose)

just wondering if other fellow DPA bundle receivers have seen similar or have they had enquiries opened within the correct timeframe ie not "discovery ones" ???

[rosebud]

I was led to believe it was a tried and tested scheme which had been going for many years without any queries from HMRC, and this was in 2004, well after the Suo Moto case had been settled.

If this goes belly up and we end up having to pay all HMRC demands I for one will be condsidering taking action against my profesional advisors who did nothing to advise me of the previous history to this scheme or the danger and implications if the scheme failed.

One of the blogs on the Guardian Tax Gap forums thought that the providers such as MontP should be liable for some penalties. They pursuade us to enter into these schemes take a fee and then lose nothing if it all fails.

As a previous blogger has said I would not have joined had I know what had been given the full facts.

I agree with SeaDog. I was never told about any ongoing enquiries on similar schemes when I joined Montpelier.

I do believe that if we "go down", Montpelier should take some of the blame and descend with us, i.e. take action against my professional advisor.

The fact that MontP are now snowed under and working "on our behalf" is no excuse for them for not taking the blame (if we lose).

[smalldog]

I hope to GOD!!! that the legal bods representing basically US lot are reading this forum. There is so much factual mud to sling at HMRC in the JR hearing.

I completely agree with whats been said about the Suo Moto B*llocks....

As even the treasury have said a "SIMILAR" scheme, not the same so how can they compare the two, its not apples with apples.

To my knowledge HMRC didnt challenge per se, Jones didnt have a business due to Montp legal pressures so just shut up shop, it wasnt anything to do with HMRC pressure...The treasury are basically lying to justify their nasty vindictive little deed.

If they had managed to pressure Suo Moto into shutting down on technical grounds surely if our scheme was identical as they keep on saying, they would have just applied the same Strategy to Montp to shut us down too....Guess Im duplicating slightly what DR has already said, but guess what they werent the same so to keep quoting that as justification to legislate is flawed.

PS - I also agree and have said from the start that if we lose I will be knocking at MontP's door to ask them why their tax planning does not work and how are they going to compensate me. That is totally reasonable, I was sold a service, now if that service has not delivered what it said it would then I dont see why I am liable, the service provider is. Of course I would much much much prefer not to go down that road, I want to see HMRC suck a big fat C**k in court but if push comes to shove its everyone for themselves...

[bollox]

I hope to GOD!!! that the legal bods representing basically US lot are reading this forum. There is so much factual mud to sling at HMRC in the JR hearing.

I completely agree with whats been said about the Suo Moto B*llocks....

As even the treasury have said a "SIMILAR" scheme, not the same so how can they compare the two, its not apples with apples.

To my knowledge HMRC didnt challenge per se, Jones didnt have a business due to Montp legal pressures so just shut up shop, it wasnt anything to do with HMRC pressure...The treasury are basically lying to justify their nasty vindictive little deed.

If they had managed to pressure Suo Moto into shutting down on technical grounds surely if our scheme was identical as they keep on saying, they would have just applied the same Strategy to Montp to shut us down too....Guess Im duplicating slightly what DR has already said, but guess what they werent the same so to keep quoting that as justification to legislate is flawed.

PS - I also agree and have said from the start that if we lose I will be knocking at MontP's door to ask them why their tax planning does not work and how are they going to compensate me. That is totally reasonable, I was sold a service, now if that service has not delivered what it said it would then I dont see why I am liable, the service provider is. Of course I would much much much prefer not to go down that road, I want to see HMRC suck a big fat C**k in court but if push comes to shove its everyone for themselves...

Their tax planning did work until the govt changed the law backdated 21 years - not really sure how anyone could plan for that !

[BrilloPad]

No point going down the who is the blame route until we lose. Which we probably wont.

Aren't there too JRs in June? the PWG one next week?

[smalldog]

[QUOTE=BrilloPad;855991]No point going down the who is the blame route until we lose. Which we probably wont.

QUOTE]

Errr Brillo thats what I said....its last resort contingency plan...