BN66 - JR Judgement Day

[Tuntun]

If you are considering suing Montpelier, it may be sensible to consider your options now before they start planning about how to deal with a mass of potential lawsuits.

Hello Alan.

[KiwiGuy]

timing

ive just got a email from MP tax planning saying they have submitted my return...i wonder if ill get a follow up email saying, "there has been a slight adjustment of £100K"

doh!!

[DownButNotOut]

I have a quesiton?

I was recommended to the MTM scheme by Welbeck Group
I started the scheme in Nov 2004 through to Feb 2006 (14 months)
At no time was I informed by MTM that the scheme was under investigation

Therefore do I have a case against Welbeck as a regulated financial organisaiton for recommenting a failed scheme or a case against MTM for not being honest and transparent?

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Review of the Review

Folks,

Now as some of the initial reaction has died down, I thought I would share with you some of my reflections on the Judgement. I am not going to start an attack on the Judge, I respect his decision even if I don't agree with it. Nonetheless, when you read it objectively, as I have now done three times, facts stand out which are worth considering in terms of the next steps.

To make you all feel a little better here's the first one:

The Judge said in his written judgement:

Two other features of the Parliamentary response in 1987 are also notable. First, Parliament did not wait for the outcome in the Court of Appeal or even, if leave were necessary and granted, in the House of Lords. It might have been argued that it would have been more "proportionate" to wait until a final and decisive judicial outcome had been achieved, and only then to decide whether any legislation and, in particular, any legislation with retrospective effect, was necessary or appropriate. That course, however, was not followed.

If you think about what that means, then in 1987 Parliament jumped the gun and made legislation retrospective before a decisive judicial outcome had been achieved and in the words of the Judge, that would have been more "proportionate". In fact, there was a judicial process with 4 test cases, but HMRC went quiet over them (just before BN66). Hmmm

So there we have it. HMRC has done it again. Rushed (after 8 years) to have BN66 on the books but before a decisive judicial outcome has been achieved (even though the 4 test cases were up). So if the Judge thought that waiting in 1987 would have been more "proportionate" then why not in this case?

This then seems to be contradicted:


I do not believe that the outcome of any legal proceedings in respect of the arrangements would have been a foregone conclusion. They would, I believe, have been complex, protracted and costly.

Yet, the previous statement infers that a decisive judicial outcome would have been more proportionate.

Given the gravitas of what is now happening, protracted, complex and costly is defintely the case.

So you see, even a Judge may not always make it clear. You need to read the judgement carefully and ideally with 2 computer screens since you will end up going back and forth a lot. Nonetheless, there's plenty to find which gives the fuel to fill up the bandwaggon and motor forward.

[PurpleTurtle]

And this time Mr Elvin chips in...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/mon...cle7005980.ece

Nice bit of Content Management from The Times there, see how they have a banner link to their '10 Celebrities Who Died Penniless' page

....if it weren't so close to home!

http://timesbusiness.typepad.com/mon...penniless.html

[sjw]

Time for a straight answer...

I've read a couple of posts on here today that pretty much sums up how I'm feeling - whilst I'm grateful to Montpelier for fighting the case I'm tired of the amount of stress it causes me, and a large part of that is because I don't fully understand the situation I'm in and the options I have despite repeated requests.

I do recall that I was assured (and I still have the presentation to prove it) that even if the tax planning proved unsuccessful I would still benefit from a relatively tax efficient structure. Judging by the closure notices I've received my situation is far from that.

It's time for Montpelier to face up to their responsibilities on an individual basis - they signed us up individually not as a collective and if they choose carry on fighting then fine - but I want to know where I truly stand for a change.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Precedent

I hope Mr Justice Parker realises what he's set in motion.

http://www.citywire.co.uk/personal/-...aspx?ID=379413

"Mr Justice Parker, however, rejected this defence as unreasonable, effectively giving HMRC the right to challenge any avoidance scheme retrospectively."

[fatsuperman]

Bad luck to all of you, I feel for you. But as stated many times, this is par for the course, good luck for round two. And remember, at least it keeps the lawers in their mansions.

Also thought some of you may appreciate me digging up an old article, you've probably read this story before, but here you go anyway...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/18/hmrc_ambition/

That's what the money is needed for... £446k per meeting quickly adds up!

Dave

PS: I look forward to the day they retrospectively make smoking illegal everywhere. Everybody who has smoked in the past 5 years ends up in the clanger.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

At least one paper got it right

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...rt-ruling.html

"A survey last year of those affected by the legislation found that 62 per cent of those affected "could not meet the tax demand, even if they sold all of their assets including their family home."

[helen7]

I hope Mr Justice Parker realises what he's set in motion.

http://www.citywire.co.uk/personal/-...aspx?ID=379413

"Mr Justice Parker, however, rejected this defence as unreasonable, effectively giving HMRC the right to challenge any avoidance scheme retrospectively."

Well, many of my collegues at work today were gleefully laughing that the loan and EBT schemes (castlemaine etc...) they used for many years have never been challenged and when closed down; were done so without retrospective changes.

I cannot understand why it is 1 rule for some and 1 rule for others. If tax avoidance is now illegal then ALL or NONE of the tax planning schemes should be attacked retrospectivley.