BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[TaxDude]

Count me in for a contribution towards lobbying DR.

Im in too. A big question in my mind if we lose is how we can argue the case that the interest payable should be set aside.
Does anyone have any ideas on this?

DR - do you know if MP have an angle on this - as a worst case measure so that at least we have some chance of paying back?

[portseven]

Random question time

Have sat behind a posh Audi in Manchester traffic a few times recently, the numberplate is MTM 1M

Wondered if this was any if Its our Manx friends....

[CanPayButWouldRatherNot]

Random question time

Have sat behind a posh Audi in Manchester traffic a few times recently, the numberplate is MTM 1M

Wondered if this was any if Its our Manx friends....

Outside JPMorgan in the city there is often a big merc with the plate H8 TAX

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Im in too. A big question in my mind if we lose is how we can argue the case that the interest payable should be set aside.
Does anyone have any ideas on this?

DR - do you know if MP have an angle on this - as a worst case measure so that at least we have some chance of paying back?

I doubt there is anything in law to stop them charging interest on a retrospective tax.

Although it's clear, from the recent PAYE debacle, that they do have some discretion in this area.

They might concede if there was pressure from the Government or there was a negotiated settlement.

If we do go down the lobbying route then the unfairness of charging interest, on a tax that wasn't a tax until the law was changed backwards, is something we should definitely get the agency to highlight.

[TAF4]

If we do go down the lobbying route then the unfairness of charging interest, on a tax that wasn't a tax until the law was changed backwards, is something we should definitely get the agency to highlight.

I'm happy to financially assist with a lobbying exercise after the CoA judgement is handed down.

If we lose however, the interest on the 'debt' is the least of my concerns. The debt is more than we can handle or recover from anyway.

[nevergiveup]

I'm happy to financially assist with a lobbying exercise after the CoA judgement is handed down.

If we lose however, the interest on the 'debt' is the least of my concerns. The debt is more than we can handle or recover from anyway.

Been on here for a very long time as a different user but haven't posted for a while as that user as it gives my id away a bit to easy!

Anyway I'm in the same boat as you TAF and many others on here as I could only pay a small percentage of my CNs. I for sure will contribute towards any lobbying/fighting fund and I know I won't give up as I've nothing to lose.

I've not been on for a while though as it just seems to be doom and gloom. Even if we do lose this round (which we may not) it's not the end of the road. I'm sure MTM will back us to at least the Supreme Court as they have promised and if we have to fund it from there to the ECHR then I'm sure people would rather do this than cough up to the HMRC.

Heads up everyone!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I'm sure MTM will back us to at least the Supreme Court as they have promised and if we have to fund it from there to the ECHR then I'm sure people would rather do this than cough up to the HMRC.

As one of the lucky ones who can afford to pay, I have been weighing up my options:

(1) pay HMRC in full (£110,000 tax/nic + £55,000 interest) and get immediate closure

(2) pay a few hundred quid to keep the legal action going

It's a bloody difficult choice I can tell you.

[CanPayButWouldRatherNot]

As one of the lucky ones who can afford to pay, I have been weighing up my options:

(1) pay HMRC in full (£110,000 tax/nic + £55,000 interest) and get immediate closure

(2) pay a few hundred quid to keep the legal action going

It's a bloody difficult choice I can tell you.

given my name ... I am in the same boat ... given the flexible mortgage I have ... in some ways .. the judges can take their time over the judgement ...theta helps me !!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Fighting Fund

Here's something to think about.

HMRC estimate that £300M of tax/nic was avoided through the scheme. Add interest to this and it's probably approaching £500M.

According to HMRC, the Montp scheme alone accounted for £100M + interest.

If a majority of the 2500 users chipped in 1% of their liability we'd have an enormous fighting fund.

[futurecat]

I think we should let things run their course. All this talk of "I'll chip in", is great.. but not right now. Montpelier are the ones who are paying for our fight for now. Lets not give them the idea that "ah well ok... lets throw the towel in and these contractors can have a whip round to continue the legal fight". Stand your ground.