BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[screwthis]

I think it's important to note that all 3 judges ruled against us in both cases. The way I look at it is that I will set my money aside via CTD and what I can as savings against the outstanding interest and treat it as lost. I am not being pessimistic, I am being pragmatic. It is important to take stock and look harsh facts directly in the face. I had hoped for a split on at least one of the cases, and we didn't get it, and that's the simple, unpalatable truth.

That's how I feel.
I have written the money off but would rather part with it later rather than sooner.

I am going to try and beat the 2.5% simple interest by investing in funds.
I realise this is risky and the funds could take a nose dive just before the money becomes due but with the CGT allowance reducing/eliminating the tax it shouldn't be too hard to beat 2.5%.

[Morlock]

That's how I feel.
I have written the money off but would rather part with it later rather than sooner.

I am going to try and beat the 2.5% simple interest by investing in funds.
I realise this is risky and the funds could take a nose dive just before the money becomes due but with the CGT allowance reducing/eliminating the tax it shouldn't be too hard to beat 2.5%.

My wife, bless her, is not always the most level-headed in a crisis, but in this case she has said quite calmly and emphatically that she's happy for it to go to the Supreme Court and she doesn't want the illegitimi to get their hands on any of our money, CTD or otherwise, before a final judgement. Quote "I'd rather lose a little bit more in interest payments than risk the lot disappearing into a black hole filled with red tape."

[BarneyCool]

Well I've just read the Huitson appeal...

And whilst I do not pretend to understand it all, the conclusion I've come to is that we are Royally F**ked. I do not even recall a glimmer of hope being given to our side of the fence. Obviously I am prepared to be enlightened to the contrary but it all looks down hill to me! Use the time we have wisely!

[sjw]

Time for Montpelier to start serving it's clients

Everyone on this forum to think that we owe some great debt to Montpelier, and we musn't upset them for fear that they'll stop fighting on our behalf.

Make no mistake - Montpelier are fighting for themselves, and themselves alone. I believe we have been treated appallingly by them - I for one would not have touched this scheme with a barge pole if I'd known it was already under investigation whilst they were busy telling us it was foolproof.

Essentially they at best were economical with the truth, at worst downright lied. And they must know this.

And what support has been offered to us considering the vast sums we have paid in fees? Does anyone on this forum actually understand their liability? Thought not.

I'm sick of this - it's been hanging over my head for way too long. I want Montpelier to assess my situation, advise me of my liability, and negotiate with the Inland Revenue. As my 'tax advisor' that is their duty.

If they don't, then I for one am going to seek advice elsewhere, with a view to suing Monteplier for professional negligence. I have pretty good contacts as my ex is a corporate lawyer. If anyone else feels the same pm me and we can join forces.

[screwthis]

And whilst I do not pretend to understand it all, the conclusion I've come to is that we are Royally F**ked. I do not even recall a glimmer of hope being given to our side of the fence. Obviously I am prepared to be enlightened to the contrary but it all looks down hill to me! Use the time we have wisely!

I know! I have always firmly believed that we were/are morally in the right for more than one reason but the judgement was written in such a way that I nearly started thinking "these tax dodgers deserve to pay the same as every one else" (Only joking don't shoot me down but it does to show what a huge impact wording can have). It really does look hopeless the way they phrased it.

The 3.5% tax they mention sounds unfair but what they don't mention is that with the fees we were only saving about 5% more than an umbrella scheme that falls outside of IR35.

For the 2.5 years I was in the scheme I probably only saved a max of 15k above a properly managed ltd company or umbrella but am now faced with an 80K punishment.

I could accept it if I wasn't loosing the MP fees and the fair opportunity to manage your tax affairs that all other tax payers with service companies have (e.g. leaving the money in the company, pensions, expenses, winding down companies etc.). Where's my time machine so I can shove it all in a pension??

[Dieselpower]

Everyone on this forum to think that we owe some great debt to Montpelier, and we musn't upset them for fear that they'll stop fighting on our behalf.

Make no mistake - Montpelier are fighting for themselves, and themselves alone. I believe we have been treated appallingly by them - I for one would not have touched this scheme with a barge pole if I'd known it was already under investigation whilst they were busy telling us it was foolproof.

Essentially they at best were economical with the truth, at worst downright lied. And they must know this.

And what support has been offered to us considering the vast sums we have paid in fees? Does anyone on this forum actually understand their liability? Thought not.




I'm sick of this - it's been hanging over my head for way too long. I want Montpelier to assess my situation, advise me of my liability, and negotiate with the Inland Revenue. As my 'tax advisor' that is their duty.

If they don't, then I for one am going to seek advice elsewhere, with a view to suing Monteplier for professional negligence. I have pretty good contacts as my ex is a corporate lawyer. If anyone else feels the same pm me and we can join forces.

Are you certain that MP knew there was a problem prior to us doing this? What year did they know, please? Has anyone lodged a claim against them? There is a statute of limitations in the Uk which means that any claims need to be put into their PI insurers within 6 years.

[sjw]

Are you certain that MP knew there was a problem prior to us doing this? What year did they know, please? Has anyone lodged a claim against them? There is a statute of limitations in the Uk which means that any claims need to be put into their PI insurers within 6 years.

From what I understand they were notified by HMRC that the scheme didn't work as early as 2002.

[Dieselpower]

From what I understand they were notified by HMRC that the scheme didn't work as early as 2002.

Well I wasn't told about that - and possibly many others werent also - if they did have this info then they were under a very clear and obvious obligation to pass that onto us before we signed any agreement with them. That is trite law. I may need to refer this to my lawyers. If it turned out that they did have this info and failed to communicate it to us then they may have a problem - or their insurers may have a problem. This would have been a material piece of information.
If one was to submit a claim against them, then their insurers would wait until the outcome of the SC hearing anyway.

[Keith Kershaw]

Can anyone help me to understand an aspect of the judgement relating to Mr Huitson's employment status?

Paragraph 11 explains that Mr Huitson was self-employed. However, it also states that he would have been caught by IR35, and could not have obtained any tax advantage by supplying his services through an intermediary company.

Eh?

The opposite is normally true. If the activity passes self-employment tests, it is outside IR35's scope. If not, you are an employee for this activity, and you are caught by IR35.

What gives?

[Taura]

Are you certain that MP knew there was a problem prior to us doing this? What year did they know, please? Has anyone lodged a claim against them? There is a statute of limitations in the Uk which means that any claims need to be put into their PI insurers within 6 years.

The statute of limitations kicks in once the loss is known. As the loss is not yet known, or indeed a given, my understanding of the law says this means the clock has not yet started ticking for action against the provider. IF there is indeed a case for them to answer. Certainly when I joined the scheme in 2004 they told me it was watertight, so IF HMRC had stated otherwise to them by that point, or people were already under investigation, they would have a case to answer.

And that is an 'IF'.