BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[DonkeyRhubarb]

NI

The Suo Motu folks didn't pay NI.

None of the statements or letters HMRC sent out 2003-2007 mentioned NI. Only tax+interest.

NI magically appeared after they announced the legislation.

Sounds like something else to challenge at a tribunal.

[wildebeest]

Been wondering about this too.....

Hi Guys

I know this has probably been done before but in light of our current position it might be good to raise again.

Seeing as the change was a clarification and we made our tax planning based on what we believed to be true. Can we not change the way we were paid etc...... as it was a change made after we had done our planning? I am not sure this is clear but it only seems right that as they have changed the rules should we not be able to change some of the things we did like I would pay more into my pension to recover some of the tax. At the time also had a Ltd company which i could have used instead and paid dividends etc...... I did not really claim any expenses etc....

Just an idea......


Also I still can't see how we can be liable for interest etc when they had to change the law for this to work. Yes according to the law we now may still have to pay the tax (if we don't win at TT or ECHR etc...) but why the interest when we did nothing wrong at the start....... & &

The presumption regarding what we 'owe', appears to be based upon our operating within IR35. It would only seem fair (yeah I know) to base what we 'owe' upon the model we had used before joining the scheme. I guess for most, that would be working outside of IR35, paying dividends and expenses etc. - the very uncertainity of which led us to IoM.

[SantaClaus]

The presumption regarding what we 'owe', appears to be based upon our operating within IR35. It would only seem fair (yeah I know) to base what we 'owe' upon the model we had used before joining the scheme. I guess for most, that would be working outside of IR35, paying dividends and expenses etc. - the very uncertainity of which led us to IoM.

The other thing is we were registered as self employed and making class 2/4 NI contributions.
As far as I am concerned, I have paid my NI.

HMRC also had 7 years to complain if they thought we shouldn't be self employed.

[freedomfighter]

Certificate of Tax Deposit

Hi,

I took out a CTD in 2008, I hoped that this meant if the HMRC won that I would not incur any interest, is this true?

HMRC had 7 years - why is that not being highlighted in the cases - maybe it's not relevant at present but should be - they had test cases and yet they let the tax planning arrangement continue?

We could also argue that the product was miss-sold to us?

There are probably a few thousand of us, if HMRC get away with this maybe we should band together and fight them further - we can't let them get away with it.

[BolshieBastard]

Hi,

I took out a CTD in 2008, I hoped that this meant if the HMRC won that I would not incur any interest, is this true?

No. It only stops interest from when you took the CTD. it does not stop interest if you were in the scheme and have CN's for say 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007.

HMRC had 7 years - why is that not being highlighted in the cases - maybe it's not relevant at present but should be - they had test cases and yet they let the tax planning arrangement continue?

Because basically MP and others put their (or rather our) eggs in the HR basket. Others may disagree though.

We could also argue that the product was miss-sold to us?

There are probably a few thousand of us, if HMRC get away with this maybe we should band together and fight them further - we can't let them get away with it.

Er, yeah right. Good luck with that misselling one!

[sjw]

My table tries to take this into account. I can't promise the figures are 100% spot on but when I compared them with a statement I had from HMRC they were very close.

If you are concerned you could contact HMRC and ask for a statement. Just make it clear you want figures including interest.

Thanks DR - personally my belief is that this is the area where our efforts should now lie. Accept that we are liable but the application of interest is unjust prior to the legislation in 2008.

As to an an earlier suggestion of re-stating our returns I still think this is something we should be able to raise at a tribunal since HMRC's argument against us was that we had an unfair advantage over the rest of the UK - obviously excluding Goldman and Vodaphone and any other corporation Dave was wined and dined by. On that basis we are now being discriminated against since HMRC are effectively restating our returns without allowing us the opportunity to maximise tax efficiencies available to others at the time.

[sjw]

The seminar I attended I clearly remember them saying the worse case scenario would be that we would have to pay tax but no NI.... anybody?

Yes - that was the line I was given as well. I still have the presentation which includes a worked example showing exactly that - oh and no interest of course.

I do have to wonder why Montpelier have stuck with this so long and not thrown in the towel - perhaps because they know they will face a very large lawsuit for misrepresentation? Or because they have underlying liability insurance and the insurers have funded the fight so far? Or maybe they're just good guys with our interests at heart after all?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

The other thing is we were registered as self employed and making class 2/4 NI contributions.
As far as I am concerned, I have paid my NI.

I should have been clearer in my post.

HMRC are charging Class 4 NIC on the income from the trust.

They didn't do this with the Suo Motu folks who settled, and nor did they ever mention this prior to BN66.

[PlaneSailing]

Thanks DR - personally my belief is that this is the area where our efforts should now lie. Accept that we are liable but the application of interest is unjust prior to the legislation in 2008.

As to an an earlier suggestion of re-stating our returns I still think this is something we should be able to raise at a tribunal since HMRC's argument against us was that we had an unfair advantage over the rest of the UK - obviously excluding Goldman and Vodaphone and any other corporation Dave was wined and dined by. On that basis we are now being discriminated against since HMRC are effectively restating our returns without allowing us the opportunity to maximise tax efficiencies available to others at the time.

I never baught the unfair advantage argument. The judge didn't take into account the fees we paid. Considered as a whole, the advantage is not as big as the thinks.

[TheBarCapBoyz]

My ex-wife and I are currently in the process of selling our house. In the light of this latest news does anyone know if we will be likely to incur any problems?