BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[Cosmo]

Same here. MP did this with me. I pointed out that all returns relating to me were effectively under investigation. MP's pathetic excuse was there was no 'official' notification that the said return was under investigation.

Er, hello! JWTF do they think HMRC are doing then?

Sorry but this is another point on which Im not happy with MP's 'service.' You can add it to the plain fact that for 6 years they told me not to 'bother with a CTD as we are confident of our position and you (me) will not have to pay a penny.'

The interest stacked up to more than 10k until I decided I had to get a CTD because we arent going to be successful here imo.

The whole effing thing stinks imo and I wish I'd never heard of this scheme. I've wrote the ctd off in my mind as I know I'll never see that money again.

I know others see things differently and I admire their optimism.

My friend had a very small exposure - only about £7k in tax, in total - MP told him a CTD would probably be less beneficial to him than a savings account given how little he actually owed. His liability related to 03/04 when interest on savings was much better than today.

So was it the same for you or did they outrightly say, don't buy a CTD?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

My friend had a very small exposure - only about £7k in tax, in total

Paraphrasing the immortal words of Crocodile Dundee...

You call that an exposure?

[OnYourBikeGB]

Read this 2-page bulletin which was issued to all tax offices in July 2002.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...Issue%2063.pdf

Does that answer your question?

It certainly tips it in our favour, but I wouldn't say it was cut and dried. It tells them what to look out for, but I suspect they would argue that just because the IOM exemption was mentioned, that in itself is not enough to indicate that we were using the tax planning arrangement. My point being we cannot be 100% certain that MP are correct and that this can simply be closed off. Better to hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

It certainly tips it in our favour, but I wouldn't say it was cut and dried. It tells them what to look out for, but I suspect they would argue that just because the IOM exemption was mentioned, that in itself is not enough to indicate that we were using the tax planning arrangement. My point being we cannot be 100% certain that MP are correct and that this can simply be closed off. Better to hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

HMRC would have a hard time justifying the use of discovery at a tax tribunal in the face of that document.

Also bear in mind that in June 2003 they put several Montpelier scheme returns under enquiry so they would know exactly what wording to look for.

A good brief will tear them to shreds.

[BolshieBastard]

My friend had a very small exposure - only about £7k in tax, in total - MP told him a CTD would probably be less beneficial to him than a savings account given how little he actually owed. His liability related to 03/04 when interest on savings was much better than today.

So was it the same for you or did they outrightly say, don't buy a CTD?

Sorry, I dont wish to appear harsh but did you not read my earlier post where I quoted what MP told me?

Of course they told me not to bother with a CTD, what would be the point in making that up?

No doubt MP would respond by saying someone working at their office making such a comment wasnt speaking on their behalf but that's what I was quoted, word for word.

The point about savings account is a moot one. Interest rates are always volatile and can move up or down. A ctd, I found out here from DR sometime later, cancels out any interest accruing on your percieved debt.

In any event, MP were being overtly bolshie (no pun) in their claim that this wouldnt cost us a penny as they were going to win, beyond a shadow of a doubt. I was also told 'the longer this drags on, the more money we (MP) make.'

And that in a nutshell is why, I believe, people were told not to bother taking a CTD.

[OnYourBikeGB]

Private Eye | Official Site

To summarise, and I quote:
Dave Hartnett unlawfully let Goldman Sachs off a £20m interest bill on an offshore tax avoidance scheme for its bankers’ bonuses.

Maybe the hypocritical b*****d will get a lunch out of it.

[smalldog]

Private Eye | Official Site

To summarise, and I quote:
Dave Hartnett unlawfully let Goldman Sachs off a £20m interest bill on an offshore tax avoidance scheme for its bankers’ bonuses.

Maybe the hypocritical b*****d will get a lunch out of it.

stinks of corruption to me, what a total W*****r

assume we get the same courtesy then, I will be waving this round the court if we ever get to that stage...cant be one rule for them and another for us

[gasha11]

stinks of corruption to me, what a total W*****r

assume we get the same courtesy then, I will be waving this round the court if we ever get to that stage...cant be one rule for them and another for us

I thought people were not supposed to swear on this forum... Moderator... ban these chaps!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

gasha11

joined June 2011, 1st post above

Hmmm...

[patbikeruk]

I smell a troll in the air.........

I thought people were not supposed to swear on this forum... Moderator... ban these chaps!