BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[smalldog]

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.

I agree, anyone who has bought one that then tries on the hardship angle is going to be on wobbly ground as they blatantly have an ability to pay, regardless of how they came up with the dosh. I hope to god that no-one using the hardship angle for the JCHR has got a CTD for the full amount owed!

I personally dont have ANY money to buy a CTD...Im just about surviving with the prospect of being out of work due to this damn recession

[lucozade]

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...

Hmmmm whilst I can accept what you are saying in principal, when I signed up with MP they actually said that they would fight HMRC all the way to the house of lords if they had to and that was covered by the fees.

Although I'm happy to contribute where necessary.

[smalldog]

Hmmmm whilst I can accept what you are saying in principal, when I signed up with MP they actually said that they would fight HMRC all the way to the house of lords if they had to and that was covered by the fees.

Although I'm happy to contribute where necessary.

certainly not how my arrangement works....there was always a retainer that was payable back to MP should the SA's be accepted by HMRC. It's about 3-4k per year from memory based on a percentage. I think people who joined later on didnt have this arrangement, I was one of the early ones...

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Clarification of Montp's fees

In the early years of the scheme they operated a split fee structure: 6% up-front; 4% deferred as a "loan" to be repaid if the scheme was successful ie. no further tax due. This was later replaced with a straight 10% fee.

If MontP win the case and HMRC closes our returns, then they stand to collect several million from the outstanding 4% "loans".

This is what smalldog was referring to. Like smalldog, I would be more than happy to pay my 4%.

[elpinar]

there is also a middle ground- which was pay 10% and they pay back 4% if they the scheme fails

[elpinar]

penalities ?

I am just reading through the testimoials and have come across ...

I offered HMRC X to settle and close my case but they refused.
Despite ... they are insisting that unless I provide them with the information they will treat me as non-co-operative and raise my penalties. They are currently threatening "70% plus" as penalties plus interest dating
back to 1986.

i though there could not be any penalities on the amounts owed ? This is both concerning and confusing .... any one know the situation with penalities

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Letter from the Joint Committee on Human Rights

This morning I received the following letter from the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Others who wrote to their MPs should also be receiving this.

Dear xxxxx,

Thank you for writing to suggest that the Joint Committee on Human Rights should consider scrutinising the impact of section 58 of the Finance Act 2008, a tax provision with retrospective impact.

The issue was considered by the Committee at its meeting on 9 June and it decided to write to the Treasury requesting information about the compatibility of section 58 with the UK's human rights obligations. The Committee's letter, and the Government's reply, will be published on the Committee's website (www.parliament.uk/jchr) in due course. After the Government has replied, the Committee will decide what, if any, further action to take.

Please feel free to email me - xxxxx@parliament.uk - if you have any questions about the Committee's work on section 58.

I am copying this letter to xxxxx MP.

Mark Egan
Commons Clerk of the Joint Committee on Human Rights

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I am just reading through the testimoials and have come across ...

I offered HMRC X to settle and close my case but they refused.
Despite ... they are insisting that unless I provide them with the information they will treat me as non-co-operative and raise my penalties. They are currently threatening "70% plus" as penalties plus interest dating
back to 1986.

i though there could not be any penalities on the amounts owed ? This is both concerning and confusing .... any one know the situation with penalities

I have not been able to make contact with the person who supplied this but, from other details in their email, it is unlikely that they were in one of the mainstream schemes (Montp, degraaf, Steed). There is also a questionmark over whether everything was fully disclosed on their returns, hence the threat of penalties. They only stumbled on our forum by accident.

If I hear any more I will let you know.

[Lazylobster]

This morning I received the following letter from the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Others who wrote to their MPs should also be receiving this.

Good stuff mate

I shall look forward to their findings. Part of me thinks it will be the standard Timms reply. . . .

[TykeMerc]

This morning I received the following letter from the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Others who wrote to their MPs should also be receiving this.

I've just had the same letter drop through the door.

I'd say that it's encouraging for you guys as it means that it's not just dropped straight into a black hole or been written off as a trivial non issue.