Got an update letter from Montp today. Concerns the JR. Seems that we've been lumped in with the Pricewaterhouse Coopers bunch. Not sure if a good / bad thing ?
LL
LL
-
-
Montpellier letter
I thought the PWC case was thrown out of court becasue they were late in submitting their appeal?...the MontP letter doesnt appear to be too clear for me.
There is no mention of appealing the retrospective nature of our case?Comment
-
Transalation of Montpelier Letter
The letter is a bit confusing due to its use of legalese.
PwC's application was largely rejected because it was filed late. However, the Judge felt that the Human Rights argument was so compelling that he deferred a decision on this until after the Montp hearing. It seems that PwC have now been granted permission to proceed on this basis, hence the reason why the cases have been amalgamated.
Montpelier had previously requested evidence from HMRC, which they were supposed to have provided by last month. However, because of the Judge's decision to merge the two cases, this process has had to be restarted. The evidence in question centers around the interpretation and implementation of the 1987 legislation. HMRC claims that this always applied to our scheme, hence why BN66 was merely a "clarification" of the law. Obviously, we dispute this.
Our case is in what is termed the "warned list", which means in theory it could be called by the Court at any time. There is an outside chance it could happen before Xmas, but it is more likely to be early next year.Comment
-
More Questions
Hi DR
Good work, we've not received the MontP letter yet.
What would happen if HMRC do not provide the requested evidence in time to allow preparation for our court case? would it be postponed?
Will the case on 13th October in Europe have any affect on ours in the UK?Comment
-
Clarification re: 13th October
It is the parliamentary human rights committee which is meeting on the 13th to discuss their response to Timms' letter. This has no relation to the case which Steed are taking to the european courts. As far as I know, they haven't had any response to their application yet.Originally posted by OldITGitWife View Post
I don't know what would happen in the event that HMRC don't provide the evidence in time.Comment
-
Requesting refunds through the gateway website
I requested a refund for overpayment of tax before I received my CNs. I did one of these late last year and one in June this year. The money didn't get transferred on either occasion. I called the help number that's listed on the site and the lady there told me "Oh that doesn't work. You have to call in to get a refund". WTF!!!!
So, if you're due some money back, try calling them. I was sent a cheque which I received about three days later. About four days after that, I got my CNs.Comment
-
Closure Notice
Got my brown envelope Friday just gone so they are still being delivered. Quite a shock to see the number they are after in black and white (although about 19K of it was taking the p*ss billing me for payments on account when I had left the structure/was no longer self emplyed - not to mention the 20k+ interest....).
Montpelier have been efficient with appealing.
Roll on JR.Comment
-
Who was the lying chump?
I was going through Jane Kennedy's testimony to the Finance committee again, and stumbled on this quote.
"Nobody could seriously think that the clause is unfair to the people who will be affected by it."
Now, either she did know how people would be affected and she is a heartless bitch, or she was misled.
At the time she made this statement, HMRC had over 3000* tax returns under COP 8 enquiry. And, of these, almost half dated back to 2003/4 or earlier.
Even in the absence of a formal risk assessment, there could have been do doubt at the time that this was going to severely affect many people.
(* figures obtained by HMRC through FOI)Comment
-
Those numbers are scary. I'm glad I never got involved in this type of scheme. Judging by the number of times newbies ask about these types a plans, then there are obviously still plenty of potential users of this kind of thing.Originally posted by iansbud View PostPublic Service Posting by the BBC - Bloggs Bulls**t Corp.
Officially CUK certified - Thick as f**k.Comment
-
When it comes to "risk and reward", it's human nature to focus on the "reward" bit. That is why so many people get burned in other areas of speculation (property, stock market, tulips).Originally posted by Fred Bloggs View Post
If you treat the schemes as high risk investments, and only risk what you can afford to lose then there's no problem. Unfortunately, that is not the way they are marketed and there is no equivalent of the FSA to regulate tax planning.
If you read some of the websites, there is never any mention of risk, and some of the claims made are truly shocking. I shan't mention the name of the scheme in question, but take a look at these quotes for example:
"We have employed some of the most notable tax accountants and lawyers in the business to ensure that HMRC will have no grounds to investigate any of our employees. As such, it is highly unlikely that they will ever come knocking but if they ever do you will have full backing from *****."
"With ***** you really can take home up to 88% of your gross contract value without any danger of owing HMRC anything. You might be thinking that this all sounds too good to be true, but it isn’t. Our unique solution is fully underpinned by some of the most well-respected legal and tax advisors in the business."
EDIT
Now I know what you are thinking. People should use their common sense but these are not out and out scams in the normal sense of the word. Many are well established tax planning firms, and virtually all of the schemes have been approved by leading Tax Counsel.
Most are totally above board. It's just the risk warning that is glaringly absent.Comment
Comment