Hic...long night...
-
Join the No To Retro Tax Campaign Now
"Tax evasion is easy: it involves breaking the law. By tax avoidance OECD means unacceptable avoidance ... This can be contrasted with acceptable tax planning. What is critical is transparency" - Donald Johnston, Secretary-General, OECD -
Excuse my ignorance, can someone advise what a CTD is please?
Originally posted by mossman View PostComment
-
One of the asides made by the MontP QC was that they had not been given access to all documents requested under FOI.
When this case gets to the actual JR, HMRC will have to disclose all documents requested by our legal team. This will be when the real truth behind this pernicious piece of legislation gets made public.
In legal terms the cases discussed yesterday were:
UK law - Padmore and s858 ITTOIA 2005. Elvins had a letter dated February 2008 stating, inter alia, that this was the first time HMRC had the idea of s858 having always worked and representing the intent of parliament. Elvins also argued how the 1987 legislation was clearly targeted specifically at the Padmore situation. ie he effectively showed that HMRC did not believe the legislation was intended for us in the intervening years!
European Law - National Provincial, Finland and ABCD. Elvins demonstrated why each of these cases should not apply to our circumstances and that as such we are on new ground.
Apologies, not well written, far too many bubbles yesterday.
Well done to DR and to MontP. There have been some doubters of MontP on this forum. There was very little they got wrong yesterday. They paid extra to get the right guy to represent them and we got the result we wanted. Most scheme providers would have disappeared with our fees by now. They are an international firm clearly prepared to fight their corner.Join the No To Retro Tax Campaign Now
"Tax evasion is easy: it involves breaking the law. By tax avoidance OECD means unacceptable avoidance ... This can be contrasted with acceptable tax planning. What is critical is transparency" - Donald Johnston, Secretary-General, OECDComment
-
Go to the FAQ on the first post on this thread by DR. Everything you always wanted to know...Originally posted by ROBIN REDBREAST View PostExcuse my ignorance, can someone advise what a CTD is please?Join the No To Retro Tax Campaign Now
"Tax evasion is easy: it involves breaking the law. By tax avoidance OECD means unacceptable avoidance ... This can be contrasted with acceptable tax planning. What is critical is transparency" - Donald Johnston, Secretary-General, OECDComment
-
Having read all the 100+ testimonies from people whose lives have been blighted by this legislation, you can't blame some for having doubts.Originally posted by Emigre View Post
I hope yesterday will have restored people's faith, and we can now focus all our efforts and attention on the real villains in this.Comment
-
This!Originally posted by Emigre View Post
My situation, which is similar but different, the provider have disappeared off the face of the earth and left us high and dry, so you are all very lucky actually.Comment
-
Originally posted by Emigre View Post
And thank god, if it wasnt for companies like MP then HMRC would be running amock with tax laws. I suspect its only the threat of guys like MP who sort of help keep HMRC in check. IF they were never ever challenged imagine what we would be paying!!!!Comment
-
Its no so much luck, remember MP have money (and reputation) riding on this outcome. If our SA's are eventually accepted and no tax payable then we have to pay MP back some money. They arent doing it for no reason...I would of course be happy paying them if we win...Originally posted by Earlyflash View PostComment
-
Not sure what you mean there. I paid them fees for my time with them between 2002 and 2005. I presume you (and some others) are on some sort of different deal???Originally posted by smalldog View PostComment
-
Round 1 definitely 10-8 in our favour
Hats off to MontP for employing a top notch QC !!!!
Then their entire existence is based on the success of this action as the impact of defeat would seriously jeopardise any tax planning scheme providers.
There's been a lot of talk this morning about CTD's. If I could have afforded to 'buy' one for a percentage of the amount demanded I would have considered it.
But I have reservations that if, say I could afford it, that the payment would be considered by HMRC as an admission of 'liability' and that they would be encouraged and surmise that if I could afford the amount of a CTD, that I could afford the full amount of their demand and this would give them further confidence in achieving their aim.
The other point is that in the JR, in front of the judge, they would be in a position to say that, for example, 75% of the people targeted had purchased a CTD which rather dents any hardship angle put forward by our QC and could be interpreted as an admission of guilt.
As I said I do not have sufficient funds, so it is not an option, and have no intention of boosting their confidence. If we get the proper result the interest payable, like the demand would be written off, if not the financial circumstances will be so dire that it would make no difference.Comment
Comment