BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[Toocan]

Before submitting any documents i suggest you check the small print because you may be opening yourself up to allowing HMRC to re-visit the settlement. Regarding "hiding your identity". I think that it would be revealed to Court if it helped the cause of BN66 - because the BN66 legal team may need to "identify you" otherwise document may not have any legal "standing".

This is not a consideration. These days we have Human Rights, Whistle-blower protection and then there is the matter of the public interest.

In addition, if HMRC did attempt to re-open a settlement, and we win the JR, then they'd have to refund the money paid plus interest.

[Toocan]

The idea that people were offered favourable deals is mostly wrong. The deal left people marginally better off ...

Are you referring to the Suo Motu deal in particular? Compared to the current suggestion they enjoyed a double digit percentage discount. You said you weren't involved so you may not know what is currently on offer. Then there is interest.

There were other deals, above and beyond Suo Motu. Have you read the court documents on the IoM Courts site in connection with the Suo Motu guy?

You appear to know quite a lot about HMRC......have you had previous dealings with them?

[silver_lining]

The idea .......

Having said all that, I hope you MTM contractors win. Retrospective legislation is outrageous.

Yeah great, HMRC are whiter than white on this one.... so why don't HMRC remove the mystery and share the details with the public.....

Having said all that, I hope you MTM contractors win. Retrospective legislation is outrageous.

well back it up and share what you know please... not, what on the face of it appears to be illogical opinion

[PlaneSailing]

"Judge Dredd"

Before submitting any documents i suggest you check the small print because you may be opening yourself up to allowing HMRC to re-visit the settlement. Regarding "hiding your identity". I think that it would be revealed to Court if it helped the cause of BN66 - because the BN66 legal team may need to "identify you" otherwise document may not have any legal "standing".

Mr/s Amnesia,

Thank you for your valuable "legal advice". Are you happy to supply
us with your qualifications and perhaps recent cases you have won?

[SantaClaus]

Mr/s Amnesia,

Thank you for your valuable legal advice. Are you happy to supply
us with your qualifications and perhaps recent cases you have won?

I didnt think Amnesia could. He/she is full of mouthy talk with no substance.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Questions for Suo Motu clients

The Suo Motu scheme started in the summer of 2001. Just over a year later they approached HMRC.

Questions for ex-clients:

1. How could the validity of the scheme have changed so much in just 1 year that they were prepared to offer you up to HMRC without a fight?
2. Did Suo Motu consult you before approaching HMRC? Or was this done behind your back?
3. Did you get a refund of the fees you paid them?
4. Were you aware that the directors, in cahoots with HMRC, subsequently went on to profit from your settlement by creating www.ir35amnesty.com to sell it to users of other schemes?

Do you feel cheated? If so, drop me a line.

donkeyrhubarb@rocketmail.com

[helen7]

I would assume that Suo Moto shut down because MTM were suing them for 'stealing' the schema. The scheme users probably had no choice but to settle since their was no way Suo Moto were going to defend them in court as MTM have done for us.

It is incredible that HMRC had full details of the scheme back in 2002 (including a full list of MTM clients - provided by those nice chaps at Suo Moto ) and did NOTHING until 2008. In fact; to justify the retrospective changes; they claimed in they had only just been made aware of the scheme!!

If MTM had kept to the 500 contract limit in the scheme (as I was told when I joined in 2001) I am sure HMRC would not have taken the action they have done.

[bollox]

The Suo Motu scheme started in the summer of 2001. Just over a year later they approached HMRC.

Questions for ex-clients:

1. How could the validity of the scheme have changed so much in just 1 year that they were prepared to offer you up to HMRC without a fight?
2. Did Suo Motu consult you before approaching HMRC? Or was this done behind your back?
3. Did you get a refund of the fees you paid them?
4. Were you aware that the directors, in cahoots with HMRC, subsequently went on to profit from your settlement by creating www.ir35amnesty.com to sell it to users of other schemes?

Do you feel cheated? If so, drop me a line.

donkeyrhubarb@rocketmail.com

from a former suo motu client who wishes to remain anonymous

He joined s-m in 2001, the fees charged were on a sliding scale, increasing depending on the total return of the scheme.

As far as he remembers he received some documentation from s-m in 2002 stating that a court case or ruling had taken place in 2002 (either dta or tax related - he cant remember which), which had adversely affected the scheme and now made it unworkable, it possibly involved David Milne QC who I think may have been a QC for montpelier/s-m.

He's going to try and dig out the mails he's got.

He did say that he got the impression that S-M wanted to close the scheme and that the above may have just been a bluff excuse.

As far as he was concerned there was no choice in the matter and the S-M people told them that they were going to start marketing the ir35amnesty site to "help" other scheme users.

He reckons that his tax paid was in the region of the low 30's %, including a very small fee to S-M.

Hope this helps

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I would assume that Suo Moto shut down because MTM were suing them for 'stealing' the schema. The scheme users probably had no choice but to settle since their was no way Suo Moto were going to defend them in court as MTM have done for us.

I have seen copies of all the paperwork/emails associated with the settlement. Suo Motu made no mention of being in dispute with MTM. Instead they referred to some opinion they got from David Milne QC of Pump Court Chambers that the scheme might be flawed. Of course, what was never revealed was on what basis this opinion was sought. Was Milne asked to give an opinion that the scheme worked OR that the scheme didn't work???

It is incredible that HMRC had full details of the scheme back in 2002 (including a full list of MTM clients - provided by those nice chaps at Suo Moto ) and did NOTHING until 2008. In fact; to justify the retrospective changes; they claimed in they had only just been made aware of the scheme!!

Yes but, to be fair, HMRC they have always held the view that the 1987 legislation applied to our arrangement so it was merely a clarification.

If MTM had kept to the 500 contract limit in the scheme (as I was told when I joined in 2001) I am sure HMRC would not have taken the action they have done.

Unfortunately, this wouldn't have stopped loads of other promoters jumping on the bandwaggon. We are only aware of a few (deGraaf, Steed, property developers) but I've heard there were several more operating.

If it hadn't been for Suo Motu rolling over so easily, and the prospect of them bagging more through ir35amnesty, I doubt HMRC would have played the wait and see game.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

David Milne QC

Does anyone know who sought and paid for his opinion? Was it HMRC or Suo Motu?

I wonder if Mr Milne gave his approval for it to be put on the ir35amnesty website?