BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[Vallah]

What is the starting point under BN66 is it your 97% or (using your e.g.) my 97-15 = 82%

It's the 82% idiot.

SO it could be the starting point AND i did say it was Theoreticla

PLUS it was only a suggestion.

I was not commenting on right and wrongs of the case BECAUSE i verily believe that if they scrapped BN66 (still a chance they could do this by muddying waters with a suspension of IR35- outside chance of this next week) and the case went to court on the facts (facts may be different to Counsel Opinion) you would lose.

I don't think he's being an idiot for pointing out the flaw in your argument.

HMRC are obviously only interested in what they received in tax compared to what they feel they should have got. The 10-15% of Montpelier fees are neither here nor there as far as they're concerned.

[MajorGowen]

I agree..... but...

Any talk of a settlement only works if, of course, it is fair, proportionate, and non-aggressive. There is only one level that fits that description - ZERO.

...

There is no space in my opinion for "negotiating" with either of the two departments that have LIED and CHEATED their way to where are now. They deserve no compromise from any of us.

Whilst I wholeheartedly agree with what you are saying, I'm sure that most of us want a conclusion to this persecution. Whilst I agree with your sentiments that the previous Government lied to Parliament and effectively cheated this bill into legislation, I have to look at what is best for my family.

My wife has been battling cancer now for the past year or so, and one of the things that oncologists tell you is to try and avoid STRESS !!!

If they offered me 10% and no interest I would take it so that my family could move on and put this whole sorry mess behind us.

My faith in our democracy has already been ripped to shreds by the way our elected MP's have behaved, and that will never be repaired. The expenses saga bore so many resemblances to our situation, yet they all got off paying a notional amount, which is what I would quite happily pay to aleviate the stress.

[Alan Jones]

I agree ...

Whilst I wholeheartedly agree with what you are saying, I'm sure that most of us want a conclusion to this persecution. Whilst I agree with your sentiments that the previous Government lied to Parliament and effectively cheated this bill into legislation, I have to look at what is best for my family.

My wife has been battling cancer now for the past year or so, and one of the things that oncologists tell you is to try and avoid STRESS !!!

If they offered me 10% and no interest I would take it so that my family could move on and put this whole sorry mess behind us.

My faith in our democracy has already been ripped to shreds by the way our elected MP's have behaved, and that will never be repaired. The expenses saga bore so many resemblances to our situation, yet they all got off paying a notional amount, which is what I would quite happily pay to aleviate the stress.

My family and i have suffered as a result of an ongoing 10 year civil case/dispute and i often wonder if it would have been better to put aside the right and wrongs of the case and just settle. That was the gist of the suggestion and nothing else.

[Alan Jones]

reveal your credentials

I don't think he's being an idiot for pointing out the flaw in your argument.

HMRC are obviously only interested in what they received in tax compared to what they feel they should have got. The 10-15% of Montpelier fees are neither here nor there as far as they're concerned.

Ah a tax expert working for a "no-longer-an-employee" "not-quite-an-EBT" promoter.

So reveal yourself and your qualifications or are you looking at the FAQ's prepared for you by your "faceless" bosses.

Give me song and verse as to why your scheme does not get caught by "transfer of assets abroad" law.

PS Apologies to forum users for use of word "idiot" - uncalled for.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

My family and i have suffered as a result of an ongoing 0 year civil case/dispute and i often wonder if it would have been better to put aside the right and wrongs of the case and just settle. That was the gist of the suggestion and nothing else.

Those users who are in a position to settle (have the money), and I mean the full amount inc. interest because I don't believe HMRC would accept anything less, have absolutely no incentive to do so.

It's trivial to keep on top of the interest by using a CTD, offset mortgage etc. so why would these people bother?

For many though, settling is not an option.

[Alan Jones]

Did the scheme work

I was not commenting on right and wrongs of the case BECAUSE i verily believe that if they scrapped BN66 (still a chance they could do this by muddying waters with a suspension of IR35- outside chance of this next week) and the case went to court on the facts (facts may be different to Counsel Opinion) you would lose.

Notwithstanding a number of factual/technical points re DTA "relief" the scheme never passed IR35 nor the Agency Tax Rules. Do you recall that you were Sole Traders / Self employed consultants providing services to an Offshore Partnership.

SO unless you passed both the "deemed employee test" at Section 49(1) ITEPA 2003 and "treatment of worker supplied by agencies" test at Section 44 (1) THEN you were subject to tax/NI.

[Vallah]

Ah a tax expert working for a "no-longer-an-employee" "not-quite-an-EBT" promoter.

So reveal yourself and your qualifications or are you looking at the FAQ's prepared for you by your "faceless" bosses.

I might pop round and introduce myself one afternoon.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Notwithstanding a number of factual/technical points re DTA "relief" the scheme never passed IR35 nor the Agency Tax Rules. Do you recall that you were Sole Traders / Self employed consultants providing services to an Offshore Partnership.

SO unless you passed both the "deemed employee test" at Section 49(1) ITEPA 2003 and "treatment of worker supplied by agencies" test at Section 44 (1) THEN you were subject to tax/NI.

Good luck to HMRC if they want to go down that route.

That's 2,500 individual taxpayers they'd have to drag through the courts. They can't lump us all in together because all our circumstances were different, and they'd have to examine every single client engagement separately.

This wouldn't help them snag the property developers either.

Sorry but HMRC would only be interested in taking it to court if they could find a silver bullet which caught everyone in one fell swoop and I don't believe this exists otherwise s58 would never have happened in the first place.

[seadog]

What is the starting point under BN66 is it your 97% or (using your e.g.) my 97-15 = 82%

It's the 82% idiot.

SO it could be the starting point AND i did say it was Theoreticla

PLUS it was only a suggestion.

I was not commenting on right and wrongs of the case BECAUSE i verily believe that if they scrapped BN66 (still a chance they could do this by muddying waters with a suspension of IR35- outside chance of this next week) and the case went to court on the facts (facts may be different to Counsel Opinion) you would lose.

Alan,

Now that you have made the suggestion about settlement with HMRC can you kindly expand a little on why you think the DTA scheme did not work.

When HMRC issued TN63 circa 2001/2 it is clear that they thought it did work and since they were not confident about taking it to a tax tribunal on the Archer Shee and Ramsey arguments etc what was the "obscure technical case" which you think scuppered the DTA scheme and why did HMRC not pursue that point in any of its letters or bring it up in the court hearings.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Technical Exchange 63

Technical Exchange 63 was published on 31st July 2002.

This would have been just before Alan entered into negotiations with HMRC to settle on behalf of the Suo Motu clients.

I bet they didn't show him this!!!

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