BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[DownButNotOut]

www.BN66.co.uk claims

not sure if this has been discussed or whether it should on this thread.
Does anybody have any thoughts on the above website claims and who Warr and Co are?

[Buzby]

BN66 - The Solution

not sure if this has been discussed or whether it should on this thread.
Does anybody have any thoughts on the above website claims and who Warr and Co are?

Some interesting points on the FAQ

Question: Have you sought Counsel's opinion on your solution?

Answer: Yes, Counsel is of the view that inserting a BN66 sceme such as that promoted by Island Contract Management into what would otherwise be a situation where the agency rules would have applied is ineffective. Counsel further believes that HMRC will have to consider the agency rules where a case is made and that tax will be collected from the employer or employers and not the worker.

So my agency owes the money?

Q: If I like your solution, why do you want me to act now rather than waiting for the outcome of a judicial review?
A: Once the Finance Bill receives Royal Assent Clause 55 becomes law. It remains that way until or unless it is overturned. The effect of Clause 55 is to remove the trustee and make you a partner with retrospective effect. At that point you are deemed to know that the income you believed to be trust income is either income from self employment or employment. HMRC have contested that your income is self employed income and until now you have maintained it is trust income. A person acting in good faith would at this point tell HMRC that he believes the income is employment income. Sitting on the fence is not compatible with acting in good faith. Your position is therefore weakened when HMRC are considering whether to assess the employer or the employee, particularly so if the scheme company is no longer around and HMRC are looking at you and the agency.

This must have been compiled recently, and I guess a you would need to decide quickly, or assume this is going to the Europe and you would then have years to decide.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

www.bn66.co.uk

Warr & Co are a firm of accountants and I haven't heard anything bad about them.

I know of a couple of people who approached http://www.bn66.co.uk and they were called back by Alan Jones.

Before Alan protests that he wasn't involved, I've seen the Counsel opinion from David Ewart QC, which he obtained in October 2008.

It appears that Alan proposed the "solution" and asked Counsel to comment on its efficacy.

It's hard to tell from the opinion how solid this was but, in any case, I suspect the possibility of going down this route has long since gone. (Remember, this website is 2 years old.)

PS.

I'm sure we would all be curious to know if anyone actually signed up for this and how it panned out.

[Alan Jones]

Warr & Co are a firm of accountants and I haven't heard anything bad about them.
I know of a couple of people who approached and they were called back by Alan Jones begin_of_the_skype_highlighting*****end_of_the_sky pe_highlighting.
Before Alan protests that he wasn't involved, I've seen the Counsel opinion from David Ewart QC, which he obtained in October 2008.
It appears that Alan proposed the "solution" and asked Counsel to comment on its efficacy.
It's hard to tell from the opinion how solid this was but, in any case, I suspect the possibility of going down this route has long since gone. (Remember, this website is 2 years old.)
PS.
I'm sure we would all be curious to know if anyone actually signed up for this and how it panned out.

FIRSTLY - Tim Warr has been advising IT contractors since early 1980's and is one of most respected accountants in the contractor industry.
SECONDLY - Get your facts right. I have never spoken to anyone who has signed up to BN66.co.uk. In fact i have not spoken to any contractor for a very long time.
THIRDLY - Yes i obtained Counsel opinion from David Ewart QC, a leading Tax Barrister.
FOURTHLY - Yes it works if your circumstances fit Counsel's Opinion. I do get to see HMRC correspondence in an advisory capacity.

[Morlock]

FIRSTLY - Tim Warr has been advising IT contractors since early 1980's and is one of most respected accountants in the contractor industry.
SECONDLY - Get your facts right. I have never spoken to anyone who has signed up to BN66.co.uk. In fact i have not spoken to any contractor for a very long time.
THIRDLY - Yes i obtained Counsel opinion from David Ewart QC, a leading Tax Barrister.
FOURTHLY - Yes it works if your circumstances fit Counsel's Opinion. I do get to see HMRC correspondence in an advisory capacity.

Alan,
You should capitalise the pronoun "I" all the time. Not just when it's at the start of a sentence.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

FIRSTLY - Tim Warr has been advising IT contractors since early 1980's and is one of most respected accountants in the contractor industry.
SECONDLY - Get your facts right. I have never spoken to anyone who has signed up to BN66.co.uk. In fact i have not spoken to any contractor for a very long time.
THIRDLY - Yes i obtained Counsel opinion from David Ewart QC, a leading Tax Barrister.
FOURTHLY - Yes it works if your circumstances fit Counsel's Opinion. I do get to see HMRC correspondence in an advisory capacity.

I'm not talking about recently. This was around 2 years ago.

I was told by a couple of people that they'd spoken to you personally in connection with BN66.co.uk. I can't imagine why they would have made this up.

I think one person contacted Tim initially but was told they needed to speak to you as this was your "baby". I was even forwarded a copy of the Counsel opinion which was supplied by you.

It seems a bit bizarre that you would obtain Counsel opinion on an arrangement where you had no vested interest.

[normalbloke]

bn66.co.uk

I'm sure this has been discussed previously, way back in the threads. I seem to remember this is something to do with the contractor declaring themselves *inside* IR35, as they would then be an 'employee' of the intermediary company who - in our case the UK 'agency' that MP used. And the tax burden would fall there. But don't quote me on that... no-one ever seemed to get any info out of Warr/Jones. However it was never explained how it could be used, as I for one was deemed self - employed as part of the MP scheme and accepted as such by HMRC. Then again I was one of the early ones in, and things may have changed subsequently. No-one has ever posted anything positive or helpful about the 'solution' here, as far as I know. Maybe Alan can explain the basics of the scheme and how it could help us?

[Rhydd]

Interest charges following retrospective tax legislation

The CIOT paper on retrospective taxation makes several very good points. While it proposes a presumption against retrospective legislation (I'd go further and rule it out entirely) it does not entirely rule it out.

One point that I would add is that if retrospective tax legislation is ever enacted, the taxpayer should not be liable for interest on late payments.

Interest charged on a payment that was not due until the law was changed retrospectively cannot be right.

BN66 is wrong. 6 years of interest on BN66 is theft.

[Donnie Darko]

Supreme Court

I have been talking to a friend of my fathers who is a barrister and she said if we lose in the Court of Appeal the only avenue open to us is to appeal to the Supreme Court.

She says we can't take the case to Europe because convention rights are part of UK Law by virtue of the UK Human Rights Act 1998 and we have to exhaust all domestic remedies before we can apply to Europe.

In the agreement we signed when we joined the scheme Montpelier committed to defending the scheme as far as the House of Lords which is now the Supreme Court.

Curiously there was no mention of the Supreme Court in the recent circular. Does anyone know why?

Do people expect Montpelier to honour this commitment?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

BN66.co.uk

I have been contacted by someone who wanted to share their experience with others.

(To protect their identity, I have blanked out the name of the tax advisors they are now using to try and sort out their affairs.)

In my experience Tim Warr’s argument was a waste of time and £1000 and in fact his argument got me into deeper trouble with HMRC, raising my profile in a not good way. Which is why I had to enlist ******* help at considerable more expense.

The tax expert who is handling my case with HMRC at ******* told me categorically that Tim Warr’s argument would NOT work with HMRC.

My advice would be stay away and don’t waste your money.