BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[StellaFan]

Quite interesting that you should appear out of the woodwork (just before the COA) after months of absence...

yes, most curious indeed....

[SantaClaus]

Just thought I'd post this link:

Medications for mania

No reason really

[BolshieBastard]

Jesus! With that little twat re appearing, its as if HMRC have deliberately let him out. Sorry, but he's *unt of the highest order. He's on my ignore.

[OnYourBikeGB]

ALAN,

Can I please ask that you do not assist HMRC any further on this. I appriciate that you face bankrupcy but please take into concideration the hundreds of families that will be ruined by this legislation.

Remember; you also sold this scheme to naive people on the proviso that it worked and is legal so I think you at least owe us to leave well alone.

If you think that it is acceptable to contibute to Montpellier losing the BN66 case; can you please explain why?

Personally I have 3 children to support and a very sick husband who is unable to work; this ruling will ruin us.

I am not too far away from this position myself, and you have my complete understanding. But once again AJ is wide of the mark, he was wrong when he sold the scheme, he was wrong in his reasoning as to why the JR would fail, and I have no faith in what he says now. He has a checkered history, as we all know, and likes mind games. Why has he just turned up again? So he can toy with us. It can bring no good to anyone, it's a very self-destructive satisfaction he must get from it. We are in the hands of the courts and MPs legal team. No bile spilled by AJ makes any difference whatsoever, and what can he possibly pass on that they don't already know? He may well have a case against MP, but what has that got to do with us? Go fight your battles elsewhere AJ. I sincerely hope that your health is recovering, I wish ill on no-one, but you are not welcome here.

[Alan Jones]

ALAN,

Can I please ask that you do not assist HMRC any further on this. I appriciate that you face bankrupcy but please take into concideration the hundreds of families that will be ruined by this legislation.

Remember; you also sold this scheme to naive people on the proviso that it worked and is legal so I think you at least owe us to leave well alone.

If you think that it is acceptable to contibute to Montpellier losing the BN66 case; can you please explain why?

Personally I have 3 children to support and a very sick husband who is unable to work; this ruling will ruin us.

The fact is that I am not assisting HMRC.

Yes I may have pointed out some “inconsistencies” BUT this was done in the interest of Justice UNLESS this forum is happy to win at any cost even if it means others “suffering” in lieu of “you”.

I did promote the scheme for a short period BUT in good faith AND “rejected it/withdrew” as soon as I had legal opinion that it did not work. contractors had an informed choice and majority of them paid tax BUT at least they could sleep at night for last 7 years.

HMRC are not the real “viillains”.

Why did Montpelier make a promise that the scheme would be limited to 500 users to “keep below HMRC radar” (my words) and then ignored it without allowing clients/users to take “an informed decision”. This is NOT heresay/gossip BUT taken from Mr Gittins testimony under oath.

The following are all quotes from this forum:

A/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. #2308 morlock

B/I have some sympathy for people who joined from 2004 onwards and weren't told it was under investigation. I would have been a bit miffed if that had happened to me.

C/Even if Montp regarded the enquiries as routine, they should still have informed everyone already in the scheme and anyone new joining. #2301 donkeyrhubarb

D/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. #2291 slogger

E/Each to their own. Personally I'm not prepared to gamble with my livelihood (and mortgage, and marriage, etc) a second time. MTM lied to me before I joined, when I asked if anyone on the original scheme was under investigation, so I see no reason to believe assurances from them or anybody else that there's a viable alternative. As far as this whole offshore debacle is concerned, I really should have followed my Grandad's prime directive: "don't let any b****r else look after your money". #2292 morlock

F/Whilst I do believe MTM were economical with the truth, I don't believe anyone could have foreseen this risk at all. It's totally unprecedented, the Padmore retro is a different matter to this.#2295 squicker

G/yep -agree , we are grown ups and responsible for our own actions- I realised it was a gamble - however was lied to by the bookie (mtm) in this case - just replying to Valhalla re would we use another scheme like this - want other users viewing this to realise that even though hmrc are sob so are the vendors of these schemes (to a lesser degree obviously!). Once I was aware of mtm deception I left .. wouldnt have entered scheme if they'd answered questions honestly at start. #2299 slogger

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

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

J/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. #2287 seadog

Finally i hope that you are successful at CoA.

[smalldog]

The fact is that I am not assisting HMRC.

Yes I may have pointed out some “inconsistencies” BUT this was done in the interest of Justice UNLESS this forum is happy to win at any cost even if it means others “suffering” in lieu of “you”.

I did promote the scheme for a short period BUT in good faith AND “rejected it/withdrew” as soon as I had legal opinion that it did not work. contractors had an informed choice and majority of them paid tax BUT at least they could sleep at night for last 7 years.

HMRC are not the real “viillains”.

Why did Montpelier make a promise that the scheme would be limited to 500 users to “keep below HMRC radar” (my words) and then ignored it without allowing clients/users to take “an informed decision”. This is NOT heresay/gossip BUT taken from Mr Gittins testimony under oath.

The following are all quotes from this forum:

A/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. #2308 morlock

B/I have some sympathy for people who joined from 2004 onwards and weren't told it was under investigation. I would have been a bit miffed if that had happened to me.

C/Even if Montp regarded the enquiries as routine, they should still have informed everyone already in the scheme and anyone new joining. #2301 donkeyrhubarb

D/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. #2291 slogger

E/Each to their own. Personally I'm not prepared to gamble with my livelihood (and mortgage, and marriage, etc) a second time. MTM lied to me before I joined, when I asked if anyone on the original scheme was under investigation, so I see no reason to believe assurances from them or anybody else that there's a viable alternative. As far as this whole offshore debacle is concerned, I really should have followed my Grandad's prime directive: "don't let any b****r else look after your money". #2292 morlock

F/Whilst I do believe MTM were economical with the truth, I don't believe anyone could have foreseen this risk at all. It's totally unprecedented, the Padmore retro is a different matter to this.#2295 squicker

G/yep -agree , we are grown ups and responsible for our own actions- I realised it was a gamble - however was lied to by the bookie (mtm) in this case - just replying to Valhalla re would we use another scheme like this - want other users viewing this to realise that even though hmrc are sob so are the vendors of these schemes (to a lesser degree obviously!). Once I was aware of mtm deception I left .. wouldnt have entered scheme if they'd answered questions honestly at start. #2299 slogger

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

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

J/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. #2287 seadog

Finally i hope that you are successful at CoA.

Alan havent you been a busy boy collating all these quotes, I wonder how many of these will be read out at the COA? Why are you bothering to trawl through this forum to record these, what is the motive?

Anyone seen clash of the titans?? "Release the Krakken", in this case it seems someone at HMRC said:

"Release the Alan", does sound very partridge like I know....

To quote you, the scheme didnt work. What a load of tosh, if it didnt work why did HMRC feel it necessary to retro-legislate? You arent fooling anyone, we all know you stole the idea and tried to set it up yourself and quite rightly MP came after you for IPR.

[screwthis]

AJ's A to J list

Alan havent you been a busy boy collating all these quotes, I wonder how many of these will be read out at the COA? Why are you bothering to trawl through this forum to record these, what is the motive?

Anyone seen clash of the titans?? "Release the Krakken", in this case it seems someone at HMRC said:

"Release the Alan", does sound very partridge like I know....

To quote you, the scheme didnt work. What a load of tosh, if it didnt work why did HMRC feel it necessary to retro-legislate? You arent fooling anyone, we all know you stole the idea and tried to set it up yourself and quite rightly MP came after you for IPR.

I guess the motive would be AJ has a grudge against MP.
AJ wants MP to lose and then wants to encourage us to file claims against MP for wrongfull selling.

The thing is AJ, it's us that stand to lose a great deal not MP. It might affect their business/reputation in some small way but they will adapt and move on..some of us might not be so lucky.

So really in your hope that MP lose, it's really us that will lose and you say you wish us success in the COA??

[DownButNotOut]

Mr Jones

For all I know you may have a strong case against Montpelier.

The point is you have been embroiled in a bitter legal dispute with them for 8 years and there appears to have been a lot of animosity on both sides, much of it personal.

It's clear you hold a serious grudge against them and I can understand that.

However, this makes everything you say inherently suspect, which is why I'm warning all clients of Montpelier not to pay any attention to you.

Spot on. Mr Jones I wish you luck on your journey and yes MTM have a lot to answer for. But your comments aren't welcome here.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I suspect he is going to plague us for the next few weeks.

Are people happy to ignore him or do you feel it's time to do something about it?

[cojak]

You see that little triangle in the bottom left hand corner of posts? That's the 'Report' button people.

If you're unhappy about a post then hit the button.

(The star is the reputation button - you can give poster positive or negative reps on there too)

HTH.