BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[Morlock]

Agree with you that not everyone has good intentions, just to pick another random name out of the air, Malvolio is a total (door)knob in my view.

Who's he? Or is it a she?

[johnnyguitar]

lets not turn on each other, were not the enemy remember...

does this now mean that I can crash on your sofa if I lose the house ?
(p.s. I might have to bring the wife and kids along too, but I have got a nice stock of wine that HMRC will never get a hold of)

[Vallah]

For people who potentially end up owing lots if things go badly, what's the general consensus as to using other avoidance schemes? Is it a case of once bitten, twice shy, or is a legitimate way of saving up for the Montpelier tax bill (if it happens)?

[helen7]

For people who potentially end up owing lots if things go badly, what's the general consensus as to using other avoidance schemes? Is it a case of once bitten, twice shy, or is a legitimate way of saving up for the Montpelier tax bill (if it happens)?

I’d never touch another schema again until the law is changed to make tax advisors responsible for their advice and service (for which I paid a very high sum – circa 50-70k). I feel that it is them that should be paying the tax bills since they ran the scheme and told us it was perfectly legal. We are not tax experts so cannot be expected to have 'known the risks'. That is why we pay for 'professional advice'.

They had an obligation to tell us that HMRC were investigating the schema (and had settled with one) circa 2002 and they chose not to and kept it running.

If a solicitor gave me advice that turned out to be incorrect I could sue him for all of my losses. The same should be true of Tax Advisors.

[ManureCreek]

Who's he? Or is it a she?

Trust me, youre better off not knowing. This is one situation where ignorance is bliss.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I’d never touch another schema again until the law is changed to make tax advisors responsible for their advice and service (for which I paid a very high sum – circa 50-70k). (1) I feel that it is them that should be paying the tax bills since they ran the scheme and told us it was perfectly legal. We are not tax experts so cannot be expected to have 'known the risks'. That is why we pay for 'professional advice'.

(2) They had an obligation to tell us that HMRC were investigating the schema (and had settled with one) circa 2002 and they chose not to and kept it running.

If a solicitor gave me advice that turned out to be incorrect I could sue him for all of my losses. The same should be true of Tax Advisors.

(1) Tax planning can never be 100% certain. Anyone who offered a "we'll pay your tax if it goes wrong" guarantee would either (a) have to charge a lot more than a 10% fee or (b) have no intention of honouring it if the scheme failed (ie. disappear into the night).

If the Government ever regulated tax planning then it would be the final nail in its coffin.

I know we've been over this ground many times before but I firmly believe the scheme was legal and that's why HMRC wouldn't challenge it. However, if the Government can change the law backwards then legal has no meaning anymore.

(2) I can't argue with that. People who joined the scheme in the later years, who were not told it was under investigation, have a right to feel misinformed.

[Squicker]

We are not tax experts so cannot be expected to have 'known the risks'. That is why we pay for 'professional advice'.

They had an obligation to tell us that HMRC were investigating the schema (and had settled with one) circa 2002 and they chose not to and kept it running.

I have to say, whilst tax planning isn't an exact science, this latter statement is very true. I certainly wasn't informed of this by MTM and I asked some very searching questions before I joined.

[BolshieBastard]

Don't worry about the apology, maybe just think about what you post in future.

Fair enough, but having offered to apologise if what I'd posted turned out to be true (which it was), to then carry on the attack by accusing me of being an HMRC plant is a bit much.

****'s sake, what kind of trip are you on!?

People's nerves are shattered on here over this bleeding situation. Thankfully, I wont be made bankrupt but I can tell you I've kissed a good size of my money goodbye in a CTD and I've still got the interest to find.

Then all of a sudden you suddenly appear out of nowhere with some story about MontP being raided that no one not even a poster on here who has direct links to MontP has heard even a whisper about and you expect all love and kisses?

**** that right off.

You then say 'dont worry about the apology' and get sanctimonious about 'think before you post.' Er HEL - LO!. Pot , kettle, Black mean anything to you!?

Seriously, if you're going to lob a grenade into a high aggitated arena dont be surprised when you get some of the shrapnel back in your face.


Perhaps you should think before you post?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I certainly wasn't informed of this by MTM and I asked some very searching questions before I joined.

I don't want to make any excuses for Montp but this was par for the course with all the scheme promoters. And it's still happening now with the new schemes.

The problem is these schemes are totally unregulated and often sold by sales people on commission. Need I say more?

At least Montp didn't shut up shop when HMRC came knocking like some promoters I know of.

I don't know of a single other promoter who has taken HMRC to court over a contractor scheme. At least Montp have lived up to their commitment to defend the scheme.

[Squicker]

I don't want to make any excuses for Montp but this was par for the course with all the scheme promoters. And it's still happening now with the new schemes.

The problem is these schemes are totally unregulated and often sold by sales people on commission. Need I say more?

At least Montp didn't shut up shop when HMRC came knocking like some promoters I know of.

I don't know of a single other promoter who has taken HMRC to court over a contractor scheme. At least Montp have lived up to their commitment to defend the scheme.

Oh, I absolutely laud MP's commitment to fight this and I have no doubt that they'll take it all the way.

But I did ask some very searching questions of MTM before signing up to this and, whilst not specifically saying to them, "are you being investigated", they definitely had many opportunities to tell me they were. My questions were along the lines of, "what happens if I get investigated". One would have thought at that point they'd say that they had people under investigation and such and such is what's happening.

However, they kept firmly silent and in fact said something like, "in the unlikely event you get investigated...", blah blah.

Now, I don't detract from their current stance one iota, but what Helen7 says is very valid IMO.