BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[SilkBricks]

DR
If things weren't to go favourably in Nov - Do you know if we would have to cough up the whole amount right away? Have you heard of HMRC being open to discussing options e.g. making payments over a period of time?
SilkBricks

[SantaClaus]

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!!!

That article could almost be written by HMRC themselves. Maybe they have a direct line to the Guardian news desk. I like the way there is no option to comment.

Wonder how the country will fair once all the "rich" and their wealth leave this country for ever.

Interesting article in the Telegraph regarding Europe interfering with our banks bonuses and pay. No doubt some people would applaud this, but our financial industry is jumping ship for Asia to escape regulation.

City in uproar over new bonus rules - Telegraph

Somebody posted a comment that caught my eye:

"...I'm not a bank trader, but i am trading in jobs and I am now shifting jobs from the UK to the far east at levels I could never have believed possible even 2 years ago.

Its a rout, I'm hiring overseas staff to replace UK jobs at a rate of over 100 a week now. And at this rate its going to get to 1000 a month by the start of next year. Hey and I'm just a small player in this market..."

[Squicker]

DR
If things weren't to go favourably in Nov - Do you know if we would have to cough up the whole amount right away? Have you heard of HMRC being open to discussing options e.g. making payments over a period of time?
SilkBricks

Well, MP's statement is that they will fight this all the way - to Europe if required - and allegedly HMRC have stated they will not collect until the legal process is done.

Certainly if MP were to back down after a poor show at the COA, it would hurt their business somewhat, so I think we can trust their statement on this. Whether HMRC will stick to theirs, who knows, they're not the most honest of outfits.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Well, MP's statement is that they will fight this all the way - to Europe if required - and allegedly HMRC have stated they will not collect until the legal process is done.

Certainly if MP were to back down after a poor show at the COA, it would hurt their business somewhat, so I think we can trust their statement on this. Whether HMRC will stick to theirs, who knows, they're not the most honest of outfits.

I wouldn't trust HMRC as far as I could throw 'em.

However, rest assured, MP have considered this possibility and have already mapped out contingency plans.

[Toocan]

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

...

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.

I think The Guardian’s agenda is fairly well known, however this article does underline the dishonesty of HMRC:

According to figures obtained by law firm McGrigors, special anti-avoidance teams at HMRC netted £373m in 2008-09 compared to just £81m only four years ago. This year, the sums could rocket

The only problem is that these numbers take no account of how much HMRC are spending to “net” this money. There have been several Freedom of Information requests where HMRC admit that they do not collect data on how much their anti-avoidance activities are costing us.

HMRC will have to spend a fortune chasing Montpelier (and partners) through the courts and on up the hill to Europe. Even if they win there they will have to spend even more to argue points in the UK tribunals over and over again. The reason is because they have changed the law after the fact – we all know that the scheme worked and that we have been, in effect, been ex-post facto criminalised. No one with a merest sense of right and wrong is going to sit back and take that.

It is well known that after the tax burden crosses a certain point, the people “stop” paying. The only way to get the tax take up is to reduce rates. In addition, tax has to be seen to be fair – retrospective legislation such as section 58 can never be fair.

Should we be surprised? Here are some words from Dame Strathie, head of HMRC:

‘In any commercial business, you will have a customer strategy. You will decide which customers you want to acquire and which customers you want to divest yourself of,’ she said. 'We serve everybody. We don’t have a choice about who we serve.’

That really does say it all.

If Dame Strathie likes the commercial model so much, why doesn’t she adopt it? Could it be because she would find her organisation breaking almost every law in the book?

It’s time for HMRC to be subject to a duty of care.

[seadog]

Professioanl negligence

(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.

DR

It does not matter whether it was or was not legal. Its about revealing all the information you know to your clients.

Like Helen7 I was never told by either MontP or my own professional accountants who introduced and recommended the scheme to me.

If one or both of them had advised me that 500 pepole were already under enquiry when I joined in 2005 and that Suo Motu had already settled and all about the retrospective legislation in the Padmore case I would have been able to make an informed decison about proceeding

As it was this information was not disclosed to me and I believe this was professsional negligence on one or both their parts.

Judge Parker certainly thought we should have been aware of the history, so our advisors certainly should have know and warned us.

If we eventially lose the case it seems like a prima facia case of professioanl negligence to me

[Squicker]

DR
If we eventially lose the case it seems like a prima facia case of professioanl negligence to me

I don't doubt this is one of the reasons MP have pledged to take it all the way.

[moira under the stairs]

Testing Testing !!!

2 days no postings.... just verifying that the thread was still working !!!!

..Daily Lurker

[TheBarCapBoyz]

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)?

Some of the Barcap Boys have been using an alternative scheme for the last couple of years, and so far, have had no problems with the scum.

Would rather not talk about it here though for obvious reasons. If you want more details, PM me.

[slogger]

Some of the Barcap Boys have been using an alternative scheme for the last couple of years, and so far, have had no problems with the scum.

Would rather not talk about it here though for obvious reasons. If you want more details, PM me.

my main worry is that I was in the mtm scheme 2006 - went to presentation at mtm offices in London - I actually asked if anyone was being investigated and was told no - (!!!) - on starting contract I met a few other people in scheme who told me they knew of quite a few people being investigated - I then (too late I know) spoke to a lawyer whos opinion was the scheme didnt look like it would stand up - I then tried to leave scheme and go Ltd - however Mtm wouldnt allow this - insisted no get out - basically left contract at a very good client and went ltd elsewhere. Luckily I saved up the tax I thought was due and have it in case we lose - however I wouldnt touch any of these schemes with a bargepole now - I do believe MTM where one of the more reputable providers and yet do feel I was misled by their saleguy - possibly this is hmrc policy i.e. to scare people away from using these schemes - in my case its worked! :-( Also received no investigations etc from hmrc until 2 years after leaving mtm..