BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[BrilloPad]

Just to make sure we are all on the same page – We; the users of the scheme are the victims in this whole debacle.

A huge number families face massive financial ruin and in some cases bankruptcy. These are people with children and lives to continue on with. Many of these people will be forced to move on to state handouts to continue with their lives.

If Jones is able to provide any information that can help the cause I am sure we would all welcome it; but I am sure he would understand that we find it very hard to trust him given his history with MTM.

I would assume that details of the deal done in 2002 and how much information was provided to HMRC on how the scheme worked would be useful. If it could show the revenue knew the FULL workings of the scheme back as far as 2002 then I am sure this would do more to help our case that they did not act to close the loophole quick enough or, present a case that the planning did not work.

being diagnosed a total fruitcake.

[SantaClaus]

Hope you are still with us.

When this is all over you might want to turn your attention to Mr Jones' tax related activities. See below for some starting points.

http://forums.contractoruk.com/827637-post27.html

Seems like he's got his fingers in quite a few pies.

I'd just like to wish HMRC a very Merry Christmas.
I do hope you will be using this forum as evidence in court

[DonkeyRhubarb]

There is an offer on table from Mr Jones to appear at the JR hearing.

I can understand why he would testify for HMRC to get back at Montpelier, especially after the long-running bitter court case in IoM.

But why on earth would he testify for us, which would directly benefit Montpelier?

This doesn't add up.

Question

What could possibly be in it for him to help Montpelier?

What would he get out of it?

[normalbloke]

Do us all a favour....

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonkeyRhubarb
I know Suo Motu had the full MTM client list because I, and a number of other MTM clients I know, were cold-called by one of the Directors of S-M after the split trying to persuade us to jump ship.

Will you back that up with a sworn affidavit and be prepared to be cross examined in Court.
If so - why aren't you a key witness to the JR on 19th.

I have a copy of an e-mail from 'Suo Moto' ie AJ ie ir35Amnesia trying to persuade me to jump ship, as did several hundred other early members. I would be prepared to produce this and swear to it in court, yes. Fortunately the JR isn't all about you. Its about Human Rights, retrospective legislation and legitimate expectation.

We know who you are. It's far too late to start playing games. You have tried to make money out of people's insecurities and fears for too long.

I doubt whether any testimony from you would be admissable anyway, considering your past history.

Do us all a favour and go away.

[smalldog]

I can understand why he would testify for HMRC to get back at Montpelier, especially after the long-running bitter court case in IoM.

But why on earth would he testify for us, which would directly benefit Montpelier?

This doesn't add up.

Question

What could possibly be in it for him to help Montpelier?

What would he get out of it?

Well if Montp lose, their entire business could be down the toilet, what price would that put on securing their business? I reckon a fair amount of money is justifiable to pull together a suitable team of legals and witnesses..they not only have our fees riding on the closure of all these SA's, they also have the business to protect moving forwards. Im sure witnesses could be encouraged at the right price...and ultimately cash can help greatly in resolving grievances, this is business remember its not quite as personal as i think it seems. and if it is personal then god help us all, if my livelihood is at risk on the back of a playground squabble then I will be very very disappointed!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I think I've worked it out

The answer was staring us in the face all the time.

He's looking for a way out of this:

http://www.judgments.im/content/J984.htm

Overall conclusion

84. Montpelier has satisfied me that Mr Jones and Mr Morris are liable to it for wrongful use of confidential information.

[IR35 Avoider]

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!!

I wasn't aware that HMRC were claiming that they've only just found about the scheme. My understanding is that they were given a full explanation as part of the Suo Motu settlement negotiations.

HMRC being told how the scheme works should only have been a bad thing in that in theory it should have motivated them to close any loophole early, in practise they didn't, for no good reason I can see. That and the retrospective legislation makes me think MTM might have won in court.

HMRC should/would have easily been able to flag who was in the scheme from statements in their tax returns (unless the modus operandi changed after I lost touch with this issue) so the handing over of any names seems largely irrelevant. It was my understanding at the time that only Suo Motu people who chose to accept the deal had their names handed over, but perphaps there is information elsewhere (including in this long thread) I've missed that proves me wrong.

[IR35 Avoider]

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.

I'm only referring to the original deal - I have no knowledge of anything else.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Sailing is bread and butter to me

"Sold down the river" depends whether you are paddling up or down stream. Appearances and currents are deceptive.

Suo Motu settlement may be the best deal since sliced bread if Montpelier lose the JR.

And after all the facts come to light you may be accusing someone else of leaving you "up the creek without a paddle".

I hate sliced bread. It's for people too lazy to bake their own. I know, I bake my own. Tomato & basil, cheese, you name it, I do it. And I also sail. I can tell you this for a fact. Coming alongside for a mooring is best done by sailing up stream rather than down. I met a bloke once who tried to pick up a buoy heading downstream whilst buttering his sliced bread. Too lazy to take the needed care on both matters and ended up scuttled. You think I'm joking? He did dint his yatch and was having a butty made from sliced bread.

Retrospectively, he would have done things differently. But thanks for your thoughts. As you're new to the forum I don't want to be harsh in so much as to consider your valuable opinions as those of a sub brought from the bench in the last minute of the game so you get a "cap".

I've been to a few "Who dunnit" parties and this is better than any of them. Perhaps a few here and some of those watching can meet up with some of us over Xmas for a nice cup of coco and sought this whole thing out in much the same way that the British and German soldiers played footie at this time of year in 1917 and could have stopped all the grief.

Anyways, I've been off the forum for a day or so having a good read and I'm in a good mood with Xmas and all coming up. Plus the book I'm reading is very enlightening and upbeat. So, for those heading off to other countries (for whatever reason) over the festive break and therefore unlikely to visit the forum, I wish you all a very Merry Christmas and a prospective New Year. Damn, I tried to avoid reference to BN66. Damn, I just did it again with the word avoid. Damn, I'm contradicting myself. Retrospectively, I wish I had not said that. Damn, I feel like I've just played out the last 7 years in 3 sentences.

BTW, what's the difference between amnesia and amnesty? I can't remember, but I've been pardoned for not knowing.

[ir35amnesia]

at last a sensible poster

HMRC should/would have easily been able to flag who was in the scheme from statements in their tax returns (unless the modus operandi changed after I lost touch with this issue) so the handing over of any names seems largely irrelevant. It was my understanding at the time that only Suo Motu people who chose to accept the deal had their names handed over, but perphaps there is information elsewhere (including in this long thread) I've missed that proves me wrong.

That is - according to my reliable source - correct. PLUS if the trust was set up offshore (although not all were) then you had to report the trust to the HMRC within 3 months of its set-up whichgave the HMRC a ready made list . Particularly when some silly scheme providers used the same address for all trusts/trustees and it became obvious to HMRC in a short period of time that a large scheme was taking shape.