BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[rosbiff]

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<b> they told me it was watertight,</b> 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'.

Who told you it was watertight ? Don't know about you but I went to a New Media presentation in London. It wasn't Montpelier telling me how iron clad the scheme was it this intermediary, who no longer exist ! Who ya gonna sue. I think MP have been very shrewd in all this and have covered their arses long time ago.

[PlaneSailing]

More 'inaccuracy'

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?

And the judgement is written as if the HMRC didn't try and take us to a tribunal before
the BN66 came in. I was told a number of times that they did and thats exactly
what I expected to happen.

The more I read it, the more it just looks like a paraphrasing of the HC judgement.

If it makes anyone feel any better, the judge spoke this morning as if he expected
appeals to the SC to happen.


And whilst I think about it, the judgement reckons that retrospection should have been
expected because HMRC didn't say they wouldn't use it. How does that work?
What else should I expect ?? They haven't said that they wouldn't use custard pies,
so should I be calling Mrs Murdoch?

[Dieselpower]

with respect - we're supposed to put our lives on hold again?? no fear.

Well of course it is worrying, but better paying later than sooner surely - if you are that concerned you can just buy one of those credit note things that everyone is talking about - but if either SC goes our way or HMRC are reasonable enough to negotiate settlements (which is by far better than making people bust) then you may regret your decision to buy those notes. There are bank accounts out there that do pay a reasonable rate of interest.

At the end of the day this is a very serious matter for us, and HMRC and the Government itself, and hence SC is the only way forward here.

[Taura]

Who told you it was watertight ? Don't know about you but I went to a New Media presentation in London. It wasn't Montpelier telling me how iron clad the scheme was it this intermediary, who no longer exist ! Who ya gonna sue. I think MP have been very shrewd in all this and have covered their arses long time ago.

Certainly when they changed their legal name from MTM I did wonder if it was to protect themselves against this very scenario...

I am not so sure that can be used to escape such claims however, if the organisation is essentially the same org with a different name, I believe they will still find it hard to escape a negligence claim.

I think this is moot however. It's my belief that they will fight to the SC as stated.

[sjw]

Who told you it was watertight ? Don't know about you but I went to a New Media presentation in London. It wasn't Montpelier telling me how iron clad the scheme was it this intermediary, who no longer exist ! Who ya gonna sue. I think MP have been very shrewd in all this and have covered their arses long time ago.

I'm sure they have. Let's find out.

[sjw]

Well of course it is worrying, but better paying later than sooner surely - if you are that concerned you can just buy one of those credit note things that everyone is talking about - but if either SC goes our way or HMRC are reasonable enough to negotiate settlements (which is by far better than making people bust) then you may regret your decision to buy those notes. There are bank accounts out there that do pay a reasonable rate of interest.

At the end of the day this is a very serious matter for us, and HMRC and the Government itself, and hence SC is the only way forward here.

I'd happily consider buying a CTD if the people who put me in this position could be bothered enough to tell me how much for.

[sjw]

I'd happily consider buying a CTD if the people who put me in this position could be bothered enough to tell me how much for.

and for the record - judging by the number of pms I've had this afternoon I am far from alone

[sjw]

Well of course it is worrying, but better paying later than sooner surely - if you are that concerned you can just buy one of those credit note things that everyone is talking about - but if either SC goes our way or HMRC are reasonable enough to negotiate settlements (which is by far better than making people bust) then you may regret your decision to buy those notes. There are bank accounts out there that do pay a reasonable rate of interest.

At the end of the day this is a very serious matter for us, and HMRC and the Government itself, and hence SC is the only way forward here.

It is a very serious matter - for us. Don't kid yourself with regards to HMRC and certainly not the government.

[Cantthinkof1]

Something will have to change!!!

and for the record - judging by the number of pms I've had this afternoon I am far from alone

I agree that it will be hard for many of us (me included!) to just say ok, we will await another few years (or how long it takes) , before we do anything. I agree with those who say that our lives have been on hold for SO LONG now....

I just wish that HMRC would see some sense in thinking that if they just asked for the initial amounts, then they may well get in a lot more money than they would if they held out for all the interest payments as well!!

Maybe there is a case for Montpelier to ask who wants to negotiate and who wants to fight another day?

[Fireship]

Who told you it was watertight ? Don't know about you but I went to a New Media presentation in London. It wasn't Montpelier telling me how iron clad the scheme was it this intermediary, who no longer exist ! Who ya gonna sue. I think MP have been very shrewd in all this and have covered their arses long time ago.

Well I for one was told this in person by WG himself as were a number of others at the same presentation!

Let's not forget, the SC may well agree with MP thus making it watertight.... Just becuse the lower courts thought otherwise doesn't make it so, nothing matters until all avenues have been explored and the final ruling delievered!

We shouldn't be bashing MP, as far as I'm concerned they've done everything they said they would do and I have no reason to believe they won't follow through to the SC and beyond....