BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[ALMAC]

"If the higher law courts allow BN66 to stand then HMRC would still have to take these appeals through the lower tax courts and prove their case before they could enforce collection.

Does that reassure you? "

Not really sure.

In the event of HMRC having to go through lower courts, who would provide the defence and who would have to pick up legal/court cost if they win

[DonkeyRhubarb]

"If the higher law courts allow BN66 to stand then HMRC would still have to take these appeals through the lower tax courts and prove their case before they could enforce collection.

Does that reassure you? "

Not really sure.

In the event of HMRC having to go through lower courts, who would provide the defence and who would have to pick up legal/court cost if they win

Just like I would expect Montpelier to appeal to the Supreme Court over BN66 if necessary, I would also expect them to defend any appeals through the tax courts.

The legal costs involved would be absolute peanuts compared to the tens of £millions in fees they've collected from us over the years.

[IH8GordonB]

There are 2 scenarios where Montpelier believe HMRC have breached the rules:

1) Enquiries opened, under discovery, after the 12 month window eg. for tax year 2002/3, enquiries opened after 31st Jan 2005

2) Closure notices issued where no prior enquiry was opened

There are a significant number of people affected by (1), less so by (2).

Montpelier have appealed all these CNs on the basis that HMRC have not complied with the rules, in contrast to the normal appeals based on Human Rights.

If the higher law courts allow BN66 to stand then HMRC would still have to take these appeals through the lower tax courts and prove their case before they could enforce collection.

Does that reassure you?

I have a slight variation on the above...

They opened their investigation against the tax year before I joined the scheme, presumably because I had registered the Isle of Man trust.
I therefore asked them to close the investigation and sent in the appropriate form.
They responded that the investigation was closed.
They then wrote to me to say that they were investigating the following tax year as part of the ongoing investigation in my tax returns. However, that investigation was already closed.

My accountant thought that the fact that the initial investigation had been closed probably didn't matter and that the subsequent letter was still sufficient for them to proceed.

If things go really bad for us it may at least give me something to use as a defense.

[BarneyCool]

I Don't Like It!

This has dragged on for so long now that it is starting to feel like just prior to when they brought the Tardis into play in 2008. I get the feeling that they are still looking to royally shaft us here but perhaps have not quite found the final nail in the coffin and that there may need to be further underhand business to take place.

[AJDUK]

There are 2 scenarios where Montpelier believe HMRC have breached the rules:

1) Enquiries opened, under discovery, after the 12 month window eg. for tax year 2002/3, enquiries opened after 31st Jan 2005

2) Closure notices issued where no prior enquiry was opened

There are a significant number of people affected by (1), less so by (2).

Montpelier have appealed all these CNs on the basis that HMRC have not complied with the rules, in contrast to the normal appeals based on Human Rights.

If the higher law courts allow BN66 to stand then HMRC would still have to take these appeals through the lower tax courts and prove their case before they could enforce collection.

Does that reassure you?

I am one of those in the scheme when 4% of the fee was only to be paid when the scheme was successful.
I received an enquiry letter for 2001/02, 2002/03, 2004/05 and beyond.
I did not receive an enquiry letter for 2003/04 and Montpelier promptly charged me the 4% success fee. Although I protested that other correspondence clearly showed that HMRC believed they had opened an enquiry, Montpelier just robbed the fee from my ongoing payments without my permission.
It is entirely possible that the enquiry letter got lost in the post. I'm not sure the about the legalities of me not receiving the letter if indeed it was posted.
All CN's received included 2003/04 and Montpelier did not appeal 2003/04 any differently to the other years. They seem to have overlooked the fact that I didn't receive an enquiry letter.

So at some point in the future I am expecting a battle with Montpelier to get that fee back if this all goes against us. I don't rate my chances.

[bollox]

I am one of those in the scheme when 4% of the fee was only to be paid when the scheme was successful.
I received an enquiry letter for 2001/02, 2002/03, 2004/05 and beyond.
I did not receive an enquiry letter for 2003/04 and Montpelier promptly charged me the 4% success fee. Although I protested that other correspondence clearly showed that HMRC believed they had opened an enquiry, Montpelier just robbed the fee from my ongoing payments without my permission.
It is entirely possible that the enquiry letter got lost in the post. I'm not sure the about the legalities of me not receiving the letter if indeed it was posted.
All CN's received included 2003/04 and Montpelier did not appeal 2003/04 any differently to the other years. They seem to have overlooked the fact that I didn't receive an enquiry letter.

So at some point in the future I am expecting a battle with Montpelier to get that fee back if this all goes against us. I don't rate my chances.

it might be worth your while doing a DPA request to see the data held on you

I did this a while ago (a lot of people on this thread did) and you receive a print out of the data stored on you (not all of it i would think) - but one of the sheets detailed the dates of the enquiries being opened/closed etc...
can't remember the reference number of the sheet (think if you search for my posts on here i replied back to someone either seadog or santa claus on this and gave the sheet reference then)

hope this helps...

[DonkeyRhubarb]

There is no doubt that HMRC have screwed up a significant number of enquiries, closure notices etc.

They have also screwed up in various different ways.

Every taxpayer affected has a right to have their individual circumstances decided by a tax tribunal.

Whilst this doesn't directly help the rest of us, it does give HMRC an incentive to negotiate to avoid clogging up the tax courts.

[BolshieBastard]

I am one of those in the scheme when 4% of the fee was only to be paid when the scheme was successful.
I received an enquiry letter for 2001/02, 2002/03, 2004/05 and beyond.
I did not receive an enquiry letter for 2003/04 and Montpelier promptly charged me the 4% success fee. Although I protested that other correspondence clearly showed that HMRC believed they had opened an enquiry, Montpelier just robbed the fee from my ongoing payments without my permission.
It is entirely possible that the enquiry letter got lost in the post. I'm not sure the about the legalities of me not receiving the letter if indeed it was posted.
All CN's received included 2003/04 and Montpelier did not appeal 2003/04 any differently to the other years. They seem to have overlooked the fact that I didn't receive an enquiry letter.

So at some point in the future I am expecting a battle with Montpelier to get that fee back if this all goes against us. I don't rate my chances.

Same here. MP did this with me. I pointed out that all returns relating to me were effectively under investigation. MP's pathetic excuse was there was no 'official' notification that the said return was under investigation.

Er, hello! JWTF do they think HMRC are doing then?

Sorry but this is another point on which Im not happy with MP's 'service.' You can add it to the plain fact that for 6 years they told me not to 'bother with a CTD as we are confident of our position and you (me) will not have to pay a penny.'

The interest stacked up to more than 10k until I decided I had to get a CTD because we arent going to be successful here imo.

The whole effing thing stinks imo and I wish I'd never heard of this scheme. I've wrote the ctd off in my mind as I know I'll never see that money again.

I know others see things differently and I admire their optimism.

[OnYourBikeGB]

I am one of those in the scheme when 4% of the fee was only to be paid when the scheme was successful.
I received an enquiry letter for 2001/02, 2002/03, 2004/05 and beyond.
I did not receive an enquiry letter for 2003/04 and Montpelier promptly charged me the 4% success fee. Although I protested that other correspondence clearly showed that HMRC believed they had opened an enquiry, Montpelier just robbed the fee from my ongoing payments without my permission.
It is entirely possible that the enquiry letter got lost in the post. I'm not sure the about the legalities of me not receiving the letter if indeed it was posted.
All CN's received included 2003/04 and Montpelier did not appeal 2003/04 any differently to the other years. They seem to have overlooked the fact that I didn't receive an enquiry letter.

So at some point in the future I am expecting a battle with Montpelier to get that fee back if this all goes against us. I don't rate my chances.

I had one year that was being enquired into after the 31st of January deadline. I had already paid my 4% to MP. I was given a verbal assurance that it would be refunded in the event that we lose and HMRC manage to reopen that year. A drop in the ocean, but I expect them to honour that agreement. I should say that if we lose, and I'm slightly optimistic that we may not, then I don't hold out much hope of keeping hector out of it. Despite what MP may be saying, I remember reading about a case a few years ago, I wish I could remember the names. Basically a judge upheld HMRCs right to reopen a year even when there had been disclosure, but not enough detail. In other words, were the statements on our return sufficient to inform HMRC of the tax planning method we were using? This was pre-scheme number etc. MP may be able to argue that there was enough detail, but it's not as clear cut as perhaps we would like to think. Tbh, when I count my total potential debt, I'm counting it all - it's wishful thinking that has got me into this mess in the first place.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

In other words, were the statements on our return sufficient to inform HMRC of the tax planning method we were using?

Read this 2-page bulletin which was issued to all tax offices in July 2002.

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

Does that answer your question?