BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[smalldog]

assets

dramatic as it may seem i think i would almost rather cancel my buildings insurance and get a big box of matches rather than hand over my house to HMRC if it came to that...

[DonkeyRhubarb]

For any HMRC observers I'm not proposing any artificial shifting of assets as they have been jointly owned for many years, but I am curious if they can only legitimately "get at" half of our total assets.

It is your debt (not your wifes), so they can only lay claim to your half of any jointly held assets.

Unfortunately, this may mean assets such as your house have to be sold so that they can get at your half.

[KiwiGuy]

Do not be fooled by the apparent attention that has gone into this letter.

It is just a rehash (cut and paste) of a letter many people received from Tory MPs this time last year, which I have no doubt was drafted by Conservative Central Office.

yeah i was about to say it sounds very familar

[KiwiGuy]

dramatic as it may seem i think i would almost rather cancel my buildings insurance and get a big box of matches rather than hand over my house to HMRC if it came to that...

im more thinking of getting all the money in £50 bills and burning it

[Hawkwind]

Unfortunately, this may mean assets such as your house have to be sold so that they can get at your half.

I was afraid of that, I guess we'll just have to see if Parkers comments about HMRC recognising hardship hold any water.

I somehow doubt it!

[smalldog]

im more thinking of getting all the money in £50 bills and burning it

i dont blame you, they are only going to relief themselves against a wall with it if they get our assets anyway...is it arson to burn your own house down? much easier to explain to a child that we cant live there anymore cos it burnt down rather than explain that the government took it off us...

i assume if they bankrupt you and take your home they have an obligation to put you into council accommodation as you wont have anywhere to live????

[DonkeyRhubarb]

OK, enough of the doom and gloom

HMRC are a long, long way from getting a penny out of us.

Apparently, letters went out from Montpelier to everyone yesterday confirming that the appeal has been filed with the Court of Appeal.

As we know, it is not unusual for written applications to be rejected, so we may have to go to an oral hearing.

Montpelier had previously committed to take it as far as the Supreme Court but WG says they will go to Europe if necessary.

Even if the human rights argument ultimately doesn't prevail, Montpelier have several "Plan B's" up their sleeve.

And let's not forget the Steed/KPMG case, and PwC who are backed by a consortium, including a property developer who put £60M through the scheme.

If HMRC think this is going to be easy they better think again.

[moira under the stairs]

HMRC are a long, long way from getting a penny out of us.


If HMRC think this is going to be easy they better think again.

yep I for one stand by you on that !!!

[PlaneSailing]

HMRC are a long, long way from getting a penny out of us.

Apparently, letters went out from Montpelier to everyone yesterday confirming that the appeal has been filed with the Court of Appeal.

As we know, it is not unusual for written applications to be rejected, so we may have to go to an oral hearing.

Montpelier had previously committed to take it as far as the Supreme Court but WG says they will go to Europe if necessary.

Even if the human rights argument ultimately doesn't prevail, Montpelier have several "Plan B's" up their sleeve.

And let's not forget the Steed/KPMG case, and PwC who are backed by a consortium, including a property developer who put £60M through the scheme.

If HMRC think this is going to be easy they better think again.

£60m! Couldn't he just pay for the rest of us?

[ASB]

It is your debt (not your wifes), so they can only lay claim to your half of any jointly held assets.

Unfortunately, this may mean assets such as your house have to be sold so that they can get at your half.

It **might** not be as simple as that. Joint assets can be held as tenants in common or joint tenants. In one case (and I can't remember which) the asset is owned by both parties and passes absolutely to the other on death. In the other case both parties absolutely own a defined share (and becomes part of the estate on death).

Now, I have a thought that if it is a physical asset they may not be able to actually force the disposal of the other parties share. If this happened to be an illiquid asset like a house what would the value of one parties share be if the other pary could not be forced to sell?

Might be worth a bit of research.

[fwiw I have a vague recollection of a tax case where somebody owned a substantial property, however all access to it was through somebody elses land which happened to be owned by the debtors wife. The property was basically worthless without the land which controlled the access and there was no claim on that].