BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[Biggles]

Thanks DR. That makes me feel a little more optimistic.

Cheers.

[Fisherman]

Divorce

Hello

A reply for Biggles

I have gone through the same thing and it can cause some problems depending on your situation.

In my case the court decided to split the assets ignoring the liability, 75% to my ex and 25% to me.

They then looked at the potential liability and split it in half, yes I know !

As my share of the assets covered my share of the potential liability that was fine, my ex's share of the liability they ordered that this should be put toward a house purchase and that I would have a charge on her house for this amount, the charge would only be triggered in the event the liability materialised.

On a slightly different point, you dont have to loose your kids I have mine 50% of the time but you have to fight for it.

if you need anything else we can swap email addresses

Fisherman

[Emigre]

Hi,

I'm just after some advice from anyone who has been in my situation. I am about to go through a divorce (thanks HMRC for my insomnia, depression etc) and am considering paying up as I am not sure if my potential tax liability will be taken into account in the settlement.

I already stand to loose my kids and 60% of my assets, including my home for the last 13 years and I wasn't even the one who had the affair (I'm not bitter honest!). It may already be too late, but I don't want to be loosing 60% of my assets, including my saved tax liability, and then being forced to pay maintenance and another mortgage for myself on top. At least if I pay my tax bill that portion wont have to be divided, but I may be wrong.

My question is, will the courts take my current tax liability into account or am I totally stuffed.

Thanks.

Hi Biggles.

I know first hand what you are trying to avoid. I had a long period of separation prior to the actual divorce hearings. I joined the scheme during the separation and divorced prior to BN66 and s58. As a result my settlement reflected no potential liability to HMRC and the ex has a sizeable chunk of what I would owe to the moneygrabbers if we lose. A retrospective review of the divorce settlement could only apply in the event that they bankrupt me first and would probably be timed out by now anyway!

Clearly its in your interests that you get your potential liability brought into the marital assets calculation. Equally, if our case is going on for another 5 or more years you will still want to negotiate a clean break as much as you can. You personally have not been amed in the Huitson/Shiner cases (unless you are one of them disguised in flying helmet and goggles ) and therefore you should try and get the full potential liability recorded as an actual liability. A copy of your CNs would establish that liability. Movements on your bank statements would demonstrate that the debt had not been satisfied.

One issue to consider, given just how mean and devious HMRC are (only matched by ex-partners) is that you may be running a risk of "having known that owed them the tax all along" if you try and claim the potential liability as an actual liability.

The recommendations of previous posters with regard to legal opinion/assistance in this area is well stated. It is the duty of family lawyers to get a "fair" (don't you love it) settlement for all parties, children first then the husband and wife. They will not therefore assist in any duplicity so seeking advice independent of your divorce lawyer is the right thing to do. Whichever course you take, you must be prepared to argue it through to the end since failure to make it stick will invite added scrutiny of any other figures and assertions you make in your financial statement.

Good luck

[stuffed]

Interest?? Can we challenge it?

Given our latest timeframe for getting any closure on this is being estimated at 2014.
Is there any legal challenge we can launch to the amount of interest this would have accrued?
It would be nice to know if Montpelier feel there could be a legal challenge relating to "Interest" should God forbid the scum end up winning this.
At the moment I do not have a CTD.
I will probably look to take a partial CTD out if the Base ratee increases. My exposure is too high to cover it all, and what cash I do have is earning OK returns, where I don't mind being down a little for now.

However to take it out to 2014 my exposure will continue to grow significantly. Hence any legal angle which can be taken might be wrorth exploring.

Thoughts??

[Rhydd]

Be careful before you die

That won't stop them chasing you!

HMCR doesn't allow the estate of a deceased person to be distributed to beneficiaries until inheritance tax on the estate has been paid.

Does anyone know whether they can stop assets being passed to beneficiaries (widow/widower/children etc.) until their claim for tax under BN66 has been paid?

[Rhydd]

Handling stolen goods

Here is a story of someone who is buying goods that are known to be stolen for £100,000 and getting away with it.

If you or I are convicted of handling stolen goods, we could spend several years in jail.

Once again, one law for them and another for us - HMCR can do it and benefit from the theft.

http://www.accountancymagazine.com/c...UseBVCookie=No

[KiwiGuy]

Here is a story of someone who is buying goods that are known to be stolen for £100,000 and getting away with it.

If you or I are convicted of handling stolen goods, we could spend several years in jail.

Once again, one law for them and another for us - HMCR can do it and benefit from the theft.

http://www.accountancymagazine.com/c...UseBVCookie=No

again soooo wrong on many levels...just getting more and more angry by the day

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Does anyone know whether they can stop assets being passed to beneficiaries (widow/widower/children etc.) until their claim for tax under BN66 has been paid?

From Montpelier...

A few people in the scheme have died in the past few years. From what they can remember, the trustees have only paid out the difference between the value of the estate and the potential exposure.

[Emigre]

From Montpelier...

A few people in the scheme have died in the past few years. From what they can remember, the trustees have only paid out the difference between the value of the estate and the potential exposure.

Are you saying that all this stress killed them? Is there a counterclaim for murder?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Are you saying that all this stress killed them? Is there a counterclaim for murder?

From the sound of it, I don't think any of the cases so far can be pinned on HMRC.