BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[Morlock]

Some of the Barcap Boys have been using an alternative scheme for the last couple of years, and so far, have had no problems

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".

Incidentally, are you declaring the proceeds from the alternative scheme on your tax returns? Or have you perhaps been advised that you don't need to?

[Emigre]

Some of the Barcap Boys have been using an alternative scheme for the last couple of years, and so far, have had no problems with the scum.

Would rather not talk about it here though for obvious reasons. If you want more details, PM me.

How long have you been on the alternative scheme? Probably not 7 years yet; legislation is probably scheduled for FA 2015.

[Broke]

DR

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

I've only posted once but read the posts here almost daily. I appreciate the effort MP are putting in to try and win this case. However, I agree with Seadog. When I was sold the scheme I was told that if HMRC investigate the scheme one of two outcomes would be possible: Option 1: the scheme was found to be illegal in which case we would have to pay monies back (but it was stressed to me that MP were confident that the scheme was not illegal but could never be 100% certain - fair enough) Option 2: The scheme was found to be legal in which case it would either continue or legislation would be passed to close it down prospectively. There was no mention that the scheme could be closed down retrospectively. If this has been mentioned as a possibility I would have thought the risk too great and steered clear, 100%. Indeed, I recommended the scheme to others based on the above options, how do you think that makes me feel now ?!

[Squicker]

There was no mention that the scheme could be closed down retrospectively.

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.

As for feeling bad about others entering the scheme, caveat emptor applies.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I've only posted once but read the posts here almost daily. I appreciate the effort MP are putting in to try and win this case. However, I agree with Seadog. When I was sold the scheme I was told that if HMRC investigate the scheme one of two outcomes would be possible: Option 1: the scheme was found to be illegal in which case we would have to pay monies back (but it was stressed to me that MP were confident that the scheme was not illegal but could never be 100% certain - fair enough) Option 2: The scheme was found to be legal in which case it would either continue or legislation would be passed to close it down prospectively. There was no mention that the scheme could be closed down retrospectively. If this has been mentioned as a possibility I would have thought the risk too great and steered clear, 100%. Indeed, I recommended the scheme to others based on the above options, how do you think that makes me feel now ?!

The retrospective legislation in Section 58 is unprecedented.

It has been said we should have expected it because s62 FA (no2) 1987 was also retrospective.

But this is, and I choose my words carefully here, utter bollocks.

No-one, not a single person, had to pay retrospective tax as a result of s62. Several hundred people had claimed DTA relief and they were ring fenced by a carve-out in that legislation.

I am sorry to be blunt but it is very easy to say, with the benefit of hindsight, that if I'd been told about s62 I wouldn't have joined.

Section 58 is nothing like s62, and there was no way Montpelier or anyone else could have predicted HMRC would ride roughshod over the law in this way.

It is no accident that the CIOT described Section 58 as "extreme and unjustified" and the Law Society said it was "wrong in principle".

Please remember who the real villains are here.

[MrX]

Just as an aside, following George Osbourne's plans to cut the child benefit for high earners, I was looking at how I might be able to avoid this. There are no end of web pages on reputable sites saying how to lower your tax liability by increasing pension contributions, salary sacrifice etc. specifically to avoid losing this benefit. It would therefore appear to me that some forms of tax AVOIDANCE are perfectly acceptable "in the court of public opinion".

[Donnie Darko]

Jesus come on guys get real.

This was an offshore tax avoidance scheme we joined not a ******* pension from Norwich Union.

What were you thinking that they were covered by the FSA or something?

And before anyone balls me out I joined in 2005 and wasn't told it was being investigated either.

So you feel you were misled? Tough, like me, just get over it.

[slogger]

Jesus come on guys get real.

This was an offshore tax avoidance scheme we joined not a ******* pension from Norwich Union.

What were you thinking that they were covered by the FSA or something?

And before anyone balls me out I joined in 2005 and wasn't told it was being investigated either.

So you feel you were misled? Tough, like me, just get over it.

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.

[TAF4]

Once I was aware of mtm deception I left .. wouldnt have entered scheme if they'd answered questions honestly at start.

The counter argument however is that the longer the sheme was investigated without being shown to be illegal, the stronger the scheme became. The Padmore 'clarification' was totally unprecedented as DR says and could not have been foreseen.

I have no beef with MTM. I fully expected the scheme to be closed down soon after it gained traction. Every year it survived was a bonus. The villains in this are Hector and the Nieu Labor government which rode roughshod over our democratic and judicial processes.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

The counter argument however is that the longer the sheme was investigated without being shown to be illegal, the stronger the scheme became. The Padmore 'clarification' was totally unprecedented as DR says and could not have been foreseen.

I have no beef with MTM. I fully expected the scheme to be closed down soon after it gained traction. Every year it survived was a bonus. The villains in this are Hector and the Nieu Labor government which rode roughshod over our democratic and judicial processes.

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.

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

Unfortunately, even with regulated financial products, people aren't always given the full facts.

With unregulated schemes like this, it definitely is a case of caveat emptor.