BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[Toocan]

The problem with this is, and I don't know if I am alone here, it was strongly implied to me that the scheme was regulated.

It’s not Montpelier who is at fault here – as far as I can tell they have done everything they promised to do. Whether the scheme was regulated or not is not relevant.

It was a tax avoidance scheme, the very fact the Montpelier told everyone the expected lifetime tells you that it was going to be closed down at some point, and investigation is part of the closedown process.

I suppose it is easier to blame Montpelier – but the villains are HMRC. Montpelier did not promise to take the case beyond the House of Lords, but they have now committed to taking it to Europe if necessary. Doesn’t that show good faith to you?

I don’t think it is sensible for anyone in the scheme to attack Montpelier – frankly, they are who stands between you and the full untamed power of HMRC. Why shoot yourself in the foot?

Let’s be clear, HMRC found that the scheme worked and asked Parliament for retrospective legislation and justified it on a lie. That’s wrong.

Have you read the court judgement from the High Court? Pay attention to the written evidence from HMRC/HMT – in there you will find that HMRC believed that the scheme worked. They only changed their mind on this immediately prior to s.58. Compare the date of that change of view to the date you received the letter telling you that they were going to take test cases to the commissioners. Were HMRC going to take the case to the commissioners knowing that they could only lose, or were they practicing entrapment?

[Squicker]

I suppose it is easier to blame Montpelier – but the villains are HMRC.

Please read what I said again. I am merely saying I have some sympathy with those people feeling they were spun a bit of a yarn at the beginning.

I've maintained in every post that this is a ****up of HMRC's devising and that MP are standing by their word to date.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

With regard to regulation...

Montpelier are regulated in terms of financial propriety and management of Trusts etc but the scheme isn't regulated in the way mortgages, investments, life insurance are authorised by the FSA.

Don't get me wrong, I am not in any way condoning what they did but I would be very surprised if they have broken any rules by not disclosing to clients that the scheme was being investigated by HMRC.

[Cosmo]

The problem with this is, and I don't know if I am alone here, it was strongly implied to me that the scheme was regulated. The person holding the meeting stated, "we insist on full disclosure. IoM regulation requires it". Still got all my notes.

Nowadays, I would have asked who regulated, what it meant, how it was enforced. I'd have looked it all up on the 'Net. But I was younger then and comparitively naive. It is true that a fool and his money are easily separated, but with statements like the above being made by MTM, it's not surprising some people are feeling rather misled. And we must remember, that large fees were involved, which tends to give people the assurance that they are paying for sound advice. So I can sympathise with people's views about being fed a bit of a yarn perhaps.

That said, I believe the scheme worked, and I think MTM believed this strongly. Each subsequent year of no action from HMRC confirmed it worked and allowed more people to get in deeper. So yes, whilst I think that there was definitely some dubious activity in the 'sales' phase, I firmly believe that it's HMRC's inept handling of this scheme that has led to this particular crisis. If they'd shut it down immediately, as their ToR states they must, it wouldn't have mattered what the sales people said in those early days.

Others may say if we'd never have signed up, this wouldn't have happened. Which of course, is also true!

It was disclosed - to HMRC via the Anti-Avoidance Legislation - it's how MTM got a scheme reference number which in later years had to be on the Tax Return.

Disclosure isn't regulation.

But again - lets be clear on this - HMRC knew about this "scheme" since 2002 or thereabouts and chose to do nothing but arse about till they decided retrospection was the way to go.

[TheBarCapBoyz]

It was disclosed - to HMRC via the Anti-Avoidance Legislation - it's how MTM got a scheme reference number which in later years had to be on the Tax Return.

Disclosure isn't regulation.

But again - lets be clear on this - HMRC knew about this "scheme" since 2002 or thereabouts and chose to do nothing but arse about till they decided retrospection was the way to go.

Over at Barcap there were a number of contractors on the Montp scheme since about 2002-2003... All of us lot saw the letters they were receiving from HMRC; we were fully aware HMRC were poking around in people's tax returns, and that Montp were defending the scheme. We all fully expected the scheme to be closed down eventually, but retrospective? You're havin a f'ucking laugh.

[Cosmo]

Over at Barcap there were a number of contractors on the Montp scheme since about 2002-2003... All of us lot saw the letters they were receiving from HMRC; we were fully aware HMRC were poking around in people's tax returns, and that Montp were defending the scheme. We all fully expected the scheme to be closed down eventually, but retrospective? You're havin a f'ucking laugh.

Agreed - HMRC throwing a curve ball is totally unfair. They should have closed it down and that be the end of it -

But then if they had done that, they wouldn't be able to :-
a - make an example of users (which is how it feels)
or b - waste a sh*t load of taxpayers money on fannying about for 8 years.

[Morlock]

Jesus come on guys get real.

This was an offshore tax avoidance scheme we joined not a ******* pension from Norwich Union.
...
So you feel you were misled? Tough, like me, just get over it.

I wasn't "misled", I was lied to. However, this isn't about feeling bitter, it's about warning others who might be considering joining a similar scheme.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

This post slipped by unnoticed due to being moderated.

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...ml#post1205999

Wonder if this is someone in the know?

[smalldog]

This post slipped by unnoticed due to being moderated.

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...ml#post1205999

Wonder if this is someone in the know?

sounds interesting!!

[SLB]

It’s not Montpelier who is at fault here – as far as I can tell they have done everything they promised to do. Whether the scheme was regulated or not is not relevant.

It was a tax avoidance scheme, the very fact the Montpelier told everyone the expected lifetime tells you that it was going to be closed down at some point, and investigation is part of the closedown process.

I suppose it is easier to blame Montpelier – but the villains are HMRC. Montpelier did not promise to take the case beyond the House of Lords, but they have now committed to taking it to Europe if necessary. Doesn’t that show good faith to you?

I don’t think it is sensible for anyone in the scheme to attack Montpelier – frankly, they are who stands between you and the full untamed power of HMRC. Why shoot yourself in the foot?

Let’s be clear, HMRC found that the scheme worked and asked Parliament for retrospective legislation and justified it on a lie. That’s wrong.

Have you read the court judgement from the High Court? Pay attention to the written evidence from HMRC/HMT – in there you will find that HMRC believed that the scheme worked. They only changed their mind on this immediately prior to s.58. Compare the date of that change of view to the date you received the letter telling you that they were going to take test cases to the commissioners. Were HMRC going to take the case to the commissioners knowing that they could only lose, or were they practicing entrapment?

Completely agree with you Toocan, the scum using retrospective legislation is the problem, not MP, they are doing everything they said they would if the lying scum came after us. If it wasn't for MP, we'd all have had to have paid up by now as they could have done a 'Suo Moto' on us and just turned us over to the lying, thieving scum, as happened to a friend of mine when his scheme providers cleared off to SA and left them in the lurch.

I always knew it would get shut down at some point but I assumed like everyone else that it would be prospectively. I didn't even think to ask if retrospective legislation was possible.