BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[Cosmo]

I agree the HMRC cannot expect Joe Public to know about S.28 BUT your Advisor should have known and if it was Montpelier did know because it was used to good effect by them in 2001 re another scheme. This is the point i am trying to make.

No Alan - you are trying to muddy the waters here. You are trying to make us query Montp.

Keep your fight with them to yourself.

Why would you think we would give any credance to what you say when you tried to shaft us at the JR?

We don't care what you have to say.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Pound on the brink of collapse

What do people reckon is the best hedge?

PMs (gold, silver)?

Another currency? USD?

[Buzby]

What do people reckon is the best hedge?

PMs (gold, silver)?

Another currency? USD?

see http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2010...hall-collapse/

Cue Rogers’ Friday response:

I did not issue this nor did I say any of it. I am trying to get it corrected. It is outrageous.

don't ditch the pound just yet, maybe buy wine and beer

[DonkeyRhubarb]

You are trying to make us query Montp.

We know now that there were loads of promoters of this scheme and not one of them forced a case to the commissioners. As far as I know, Montpelier were the only ones who ever got close. HMRC started the process in March 2006 by issuing CNs to 4 lead cases. Montpelier immediately appealed and HMRC replied saying the cases would be listed at the SC.

As someone pointed out earlier, why didn't Suo Motu take a case to the commissioners instead of handing their clients over to HMRC on a plate? After all, the deal was crap wasn't it?

[BolshieBastard]

Please dont give pieces of excrement even troll excrement with initials AJ the oxygen it wants.

BTW, further example of HMRC's incompetence. The other day I decided to phone the number of those awfully nice people in cumbernauld to ask wtf is my CTD?

Instead I got through to an answer phone. Only it doesnt identify itself as HMRC or anything. Just a 'Sorry, your call cannot be answered right now. Please leave a message at the tone.........' **** that! It sounds like someone's home answering service!

Perhaps hmrc are so strapped for cash they cant be arsed identifying the Department \ Section line being called?

I checked the number several times so I hadnt misdialed.

[OnYourBikeGB]

He knew about it in 1998 i.e he knew about Padmore, about HMRC 1660 and about retrospection. All these were discussed with Counsel.

Also ask Mr Gittins about Paragraph 9B of the UK/IOM Double Tax Treaty inserted in 1994. This could be reason why a s28 [or sic] was not "triggered" - this is an option available to the taxpayer to force a dispute before the commissioners very quickly (used by "M" on another case in 2001). EVEN Judge Parker QUERIED why you had not taken that route.

FINALLY - Re my comments about Padmore and retrospective law and therefore users of identical/similar scheme for IR35 should have expected retrospection - I was MERELY QUOTING the JUDGE. What is the saying dont shoot the messenger.

This really is becoming a bore. So obviously, you must have been aware of this too when you were selling the scheme, and I remember you telling me about how tax law cannot be retrospective.

Just while we are playing mind games, here's one called 'Will the Real Alan Jones Please Stand Up'. Your starter questions:

a) Did you tell the members of your scheme immediately you started to negotiate, if not, why not?
b) If you did not, did you continue to charge your fee during the negotiation?
c) If the you did continue to charge your fee did you return this to the members of your scheme, or did you pass it on to HMRC or did you keep it?
d) How many months did it take?

Just wondering. I'm just giving you the opportunity to put it on record, so as to prevent anyone accusing you of playing games with your clients.

[nuffsaid]

I was thinking... perhaps we should put Steed, PwC, KPMG and Ernst & Young in touch with Alan. I'm sure that after speaking with him they would realise that they know nothing and he is sooooo right.
They are obviously just wasting time and money because they were feeling a bit bored.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Don't shoot the messenger

I'm merely quoting the Judge.

But, in my humble opinion, the Judge was right.

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

154. I agree with Montpelier that it would be strange if an employee (or consultant) involved with a scheme such as the Disputed Scheme could properly leave his employer and immediately set up in competition marketing a similar scheme. I do not consider that Mr Jones and Mr Morris were so entitled.

155. More particularly, the advice given by Mr Argles in 2001 plainly, in my view, represented confidential information in the hands of Mr Jones and Mr Morris as well as in the hands of others.

157. Further, I consider that, in constructing the Post-Split Scheme, Mr Jones and Mr Morris will have made use of confidential information about the manner in which the Disputed Scheme used offshore interest-in-possession trusts in partnership.

160. I consider, too, that, in promoting the Post-Split Scheme, Mr Jones and Mr Morris made use of Mr Argles' March opinions. As I see it, the references to tax counsel having "approved the solution in the form of detailed written opinion" related to, and so disclosed confidential information about, Mr Argles' March advice.

161. In summary, in my judgment Mr Jones and Mr Morris made wrongful use of (a) the idea of using offshore interest-in-possession trusts in partnership to avoid the IR35 legislation, (b) information about the manner in which the Disputed Scheme was constructed and (c) Mr Argles' March opinions.

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

[SantaClaus]

Santa, I have a couple of ounces of gold. It might be worth 200M quid soon, so I can pay for us all if needed!

That's very kind of you TSBT, however there really is no need...

The way the £ is going, I may be able to pay HMRC in buttons soon!

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

I'm merely quoting the Judge.

But, in my humble opinion, the Judge was right.

Thanks DR. Well at least that Judgement was certain. I think a certain person needs to spend more time on their dilemma than on ours...

AJ 0 -1 DR