Argentia, anyone heard of them?

[cojak]

And so is Lisa...

[Vallah]

And so is Lisa...

And so you agree with her assertion that the Montpelier contractors are guilty of tax evasion then?

[DaveB]

And so you agree with her assertion that the Montpelier contractors are guilty of tax evasion then?

Following the letter of the law as it now stands after S58, they are.

Post S58, in purely legal terms, the Montpelier schemes are illegal and have been illegal from the day they were concieved.

The fact that HMRC are not persuing them as such is a different matter.

They know very well that they would get nowhere in the courts trying to prosecute people under a law that retrospectively makes criminals of those who were obeying the the law previously.

[sal626]

Following the letter of the law as it now stands after S58, they are.

Post S58, in purely legal terms, the Montpelier schemes are illegal and have been illegal from the day they were concieved.

The fact that HMRC are not persuing them as such is a different matter.

They know very well that they would get nowhere in the courts trying to prosecute people under a law that retrospectively makes criminals of those who were obeying the the law previously.

So in practise, retro changing of laws makes avoidance into evasion, but HMRC will not prosecute as such, meaning that the 200% penalties lisa talked about will never be applied?

Have I got that right?

[NotAllThere]

And so you agree with her assertion that the Montpelier contractors are guilty of tax evasion then?

She has not made that assertion. I am not arguing with you. I am telling you to STOP.

[DaveB]

So in practise, retro changing of laws makes avoidance into evasion, but HMRC will not prosecute as such, meaning that the 200% penalties lisa talked about will never be applied?

Have I got that right?

As it stands now, yes you have. HMRC are persuing the 'outstanding' tax as a civil debt, meaning they can 'only' charge interest on it. DR can correct me on this if I have missed somthing in the regs that means they can apply penalties as well, but I dont think they can.

This may well change if HMRC win the current court cases. A cynic could make all sorts of legal arguments based on that scenario.

[cojak]

And so you agree with her assertion that the Montpelier contractors are guilty of tax evasion then?

Lisa has said nothing of the sort in this thread. I agree with her when she said that HMRC moves goalposts.

HMRC dislikes tax avoidance as much as it dislikes tax evasion.

The Montpelier contractors are guilty of nothing, as far as I'm aware...

[Vallah]

She has not made that assertion. I am not arguing with you. I am telling you to STOP.

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to be bullied by you. You're wrong, plain and simple, and you can send me all the warnings you like. What she said is there in black and white:

When the BN66 crowd signed up to the scheme they used they probably used all the same arguments that the EBT guys are using now and they would have been right - at the time it was avoidance and not evasion.

[cojak]

"and they would have been right - at the time it was avoidance and not evasion. "

Nope - can't see a problem with that.

Or were you unhappy and her calling them a 'crowd'?

[DaveB]

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to be bullied by you. You're wrong, plain and simple, and you can send me all the warnings you like. What she said is there in black and white:

When the BN66 crowd signed up to the scheme they used they probably used all the same arguments that the EBT guys are using now and they would have been right - at the time it was avoidance and not evasion.

That is not saying they are guilty of evasion, that is saying that at the time the schemes were concieved they were seen as avoidance.

As I said earlier, on strict interpretation of the law it is no longer avoidance and never has been. The fact that HMRC is not prosecuting is something else altogether.