BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[WhiteCat]

Avoidance schemes ?

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)?

It was unnecessarily coughing up for a couple of years as 'probably caught by IR35' that tempted me offshore. Have now been back to Ltd Co operating outside IR35 for 18 months, and that still feels risky enough . . . so that's a 'No' from me.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Is anyone planning to attend the Court of Appeal?

It's scheduled to start either Tues 2nd or Wed 3rd November*, and will probably last 3 days. Sessions usually start at 10.30 and finish at 4.

* we probably won't get confirmation of the start day until Mon 1st Nov

[Emigre]

Is anyone planning to attend the Court of Appeal?

It's scheduled to start either Tues 2nd or Wed 3rd November*, and will probably last 3 days. Sessions usually start at 10.30 and finish at 4.

* we probably won't get confirmation of the start day until Mon 1st Nov

I will be able to make it for at least one day but probably not all of it. Interesting that these dates fall across the anniversary of some guy putting a bomb under Parliament - any coincidence? According to our munitions expert, unlikely to create shrapnel.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

More on the raid

I've had a tip-off that the raid centred on Montp's "charity scheme" mentioned in this Guardian article.

Under pressure: tax inspectors turn up the heat on the rich | Business | The Observer

"Montpelier also marketed a scheme in the City that involved charitable donations. Watkin Gittins, one of the firm's Isle of Man-based directors, said the scheme was closed to clients following a change in the law in December that in effect outlawed such plans."

Given that this scheme was closed nearly a year ago, it makes me suspect even more that the timing of the raid, so close to the Court of Appeal hearing, was cynically orchestrated to distract and discredit Montp.

Bastards!!!

[Toocan]

I think some of us may be falling into HMRC’s mind set.

Consider this:

Every piece of tax planning that is anything other than publicised by HMRC will inevitably be investigated by HMRC at some point. To an extent, that is their job.

Where a scheme is a tax avoidance scheme then there is a “usual procedure”:

1. Scheme is conceived
2. Scheme is “sold” to participants
3. Scheme is declared if it falls within the declaration criteria
4. HMRC issues notices of enquiry
5. HMRC “investigate scheme” and exchange some letters
6. HMRC either accept the scheme is valid or they try to thwart it in some way
7. Scheme may or may not be closed down either through legal precedent (ie they take or case) or new legislation.

A scheme may be investigated and then the investigation closed with no legal or financial effect. I know of one individual, in the early days, on the Montpelier DTA scheme that was investigated and the investigation closed with no action taken.

The fact HMRC are investigating a scheme does not actually tell you that there is a problem with the scheme. This is a concept that HMRC would like you to eat whole – but it’s just not true.

HMRC were always going to investigate the Montpelier DTA scheme at some point – that was inevitable. But it does not follow that it would be judged to be unlawful. In fact, it is quite clear that the HMRC investigations found that the DTA scheme was both lawful and effective.

The problem is not whether or when HMRC began investigating the DTA scheme – but that they enacted retrospective legislation. Retrospective legislation that went back over two decades in theory, but seven years in practice. Retrospection of this type must be close to a definition of institutional dishonesty.

There was no way that anyone could have legitimately expected this kind of behaviour. So aim your fire where it’s due – on HMRC and HM Treasury. They are the perpetrators of this injustice.

[StellaFan]

Is anyone planning to attend the Court of Appeal?

Hoping to pop down for a day or two of the hearing

[CanPayButWouldRatherNot]

Hoping to pop down for a day or two of the hearing

DR last time it was viewed as good to ahve a packed audience .... my wife came along and me , Brillopad and another inmate met her at lunch time and caught 45mins of it all ..

do we "need" numbers again .... I will defo pop along and see my fate being discussed during my lunch window ....wonder if Alan "I am Jones" Jones will be coming too ..

Cheers

CPBWRN

[centurian]

Given that this scheme was closed nearly a year ago, it makes me suspect even more that the timing of the raid, so close to the Court of Appeal hearing, was cynically orchestrated to distract and discredit Montp.

You can just hear it now

"And these tax advisors are prepared to stoop so low as to use charities to help the rich illegally evade tax"

[centurian]

I read that as MP were selling a scheme labelled as avoidance but it is in fact evasion in HMRC's view.

Which on the face of it, isn't a problem. Just labelling something as avoidance doesn't automatically mean that it is. And HMRC have every right to challenge them on that.

But trumping up charges in order to get a warrant for a raid is something else.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

DR last time it was viewed as good to ahve a packed audience .... my wife came along and me , Brillopad and another inmate met her at lunch time and caught 45mins of it all ..

do we "need" numbers again .... I will defo pop along and see my fate being discussed during my lunch window ....wonder if Alan "I am Jones" Jones will be coming too ..

Cheers

CPBWRN

CPBWRN

Having a packed audience didn't help us much did it.

I know this might sound a bit silly but it almost feels like tempting fate to go.

DR