BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[lynchase]

BN66 - Steed and Keypay

As a newbie to this forum I would be interested in knowing if there are any others who were in Steed. I see a lot of posts here from MP and am presuming we are all very much in the same boat.

I have received a letter from the HMRC saying the Supreme court has rejected hearing an appeal and it would seem that they are now going full steam ahead in working out what I, and many others I presume, owe.

I have taken this as simply as a frightner letter to get me to cave in and accept that I owe money from a scheme that was legal at the time I joined back in 2006. I was only in it for 9 months but joined another scheme run by Keypay.

Is this another one that falls into BN66? If so I am wondering just how high my liabilities will go.

Welcome your thoughts.

[OldITGit]

I dont know what happened to my previous post....

As a newbie to this forum I would be interested in knowing if there are any others who were in Steed. I see a lot of posts here from MP and am presuming we are all very much in the same boat.

I have received a letter from the HMRC saying the Supreme court has rejected hearing an appeal and it would seem that they are now going full steam ahead in working out what I, and many others I presume, owe.

I have taken this as simply as a frightner letter to get me to cave in and accept that I owe money from a scheme that was legal at the time I joined back in 2006. I was only in it for 9 months but joined another scheme run by Keypay.

Is this another one that falls into BN66? If so I am wondering just how high my liabilities will go.

Welcome your thoughts.

2 considerations, why did computer agencies make payments via eg New Media Factory etc if they thought these payments could be construed as illegal. Why didn't MP or HMRC make reference to the 4 test cases in 2003, rather than saying "your return is being investigated"
I have colleagues who used the Norla Loans scheme and that was closed prospectively, rather than retrospectively and theirs could be deemed as non declared and therefore evasion, rather than avoidance. In this era of "fairness" how fair is that
OIG

[SantaClaus]

I got my MP letter today. It did not look like a holding letter to me. I read it that we will probably have to pay up late 2012/early 2013.

I read it as Montpelier will continue stringing us along without giving us the full details.

Would rather it had said "you will have to pay in 2012/2013, but we're going to the ECHR as a vanity project".

Happy to be proven wrong!

[BrilloPad]

I read it as Montpelier will continue stringing us along without giving us the full details.

Would rather it had said "you will have to pay in 2012/2013, but we're going to the ECHR as a vanity project".

Happy to be proven wrong!

Absolutely. Alot here have commented that MP are not good at communication. I would like to hear it straight.

I am sure that MP will fight all the way - but Brannigan is now prosecution, judge, jury and executioner. We have been treated very unfairly and knifed in the back. And people are going to be made bankrupt.

I have always said on cuk that I detest the UK and as soon as the kids are old enough I will move abroad(joint custody with my ex). But that is 8 years away.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Hmm - but I thought MP had just about quit this side of the business - and if I were looking for tax advice a quick google search and a read of this forum would send me scurrying away like a scalded cat. Doesn't add up.

Doesn't really matter - we are in a hole and all I want to know how we can minimise exposure and what legal comeback we have on MP. I don't think that is an unfair question at this point of the proceedings.

MP have stopped promoting new mass market retail schemes to the likes of us. They still have existing schemes running and I have not heard that they are getting out of (bespoke) tax planning altogether.

[Retro]

MP have stopped promoting new mass market retail schemes to the likes of us. They still have existing schemes running and I have not heard that they are getting out of (bespoke) tax planning altogether.

Indeed, one of the major problems with this scheme was the "mass market" aspect, which ran contrary to the advice I received about restricted numbers.

[BolshieBastard]

I read it as Montpelier will continue stringing us along without giving us the full details.

Would rather it had said "you will have to pay in 2012/2013, but we're going to the ECHR as a vanity project".

Happy to be proven wrong!

They had from 7 Feb to about the 22 Feb (when people started getting 'their' letter) to come up with something substantial. Instead we got 'er, we lost and we are surprised. We need to discuss with others what to do. We expect you'll have to cough up by late 2013 at the latest. We havent got the foggiest what to do now.'

Of course, Im paraphrasing here. I find it incredible a so called tax company cant keep it's client's better informed from day 1 in this scandal. TBH, Im only surprised Im surprised anyone thought mP really would win based on their track record alone.

As for a class action against MP, it will be a case of throwing (more) good money after bad,imo. Unless someone can conclusively show they have been completely negligent you'll get nowhere. And MP know it.

[Disgusted of Coventry]

I am sure that MP will fight all the way ...

Excuse me for asking, but are MP the best choice to oversee the next sequence of events?

From an amateur's perspective, the circumstances reduce down to this :

1. Fog's 4 children are at risk of being made homeless because HMRC failed to inform him (her?) of a future retrospective change to the Law.
2. Like the majority of people, Fog sought only to arrange his (her) tax affairs to best personal advantage whilst remaining within the Law.
3. Fog (perhaps), my friend (definitely), and others (certainly) were driven to seek predictability against the backdrop of the uncertainty & confusion of IR35.

I haven't the faintest idea how these Tax Tribunals work, but do they really need the abstruse intellectual arguments that MP's counsel are likely to produce? I'm not trying to denounce MP; I'm merely asking whether Fog's (say) interests would be better represented by someone who isn't in the tax avoidance business.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I haven't the faintest idea how these Tax Tribunals work, but do they really need the abstruse intellectual arguments that MP's counsel are likely to produce? I'm not trying to denounce MP; I'm merely asking whether Fog's (say) interests would be better represented by someone who isn't in the tax avoidance business.

MP have a lot of experience of defending clients in tax tribunals. This is where most of their court battles with HMRC are fought out.

The arguments at a tribunal will be totally different to the Huitson case. These will be technical in nature focusing on specific and precise points of law, with none of the HR woollyness.

Incidentally, Tax Courts cannot consider HR claims, which is why the Huitson case started out in the High Court rather than a tribunal.

[ready_to_leave]

Any one know what the situation as to being also lumped with HMRC's costs as part of the tribunal appeal.

I am a bit wary of the following:
HM Revenue & Customs: Appealing to the tribunal

"Generally, each person will pay their own costs when appealing, for example the costs of accountant’s fees. But if any person acts unreasonably during the proceedings, the tribunal can order them to pay the other person’s costs.
There are also special rules for costs in complex cases."

My experience of a state bodies is that "unreasonable" is whatever they want it to mean and I do not fancy having to pay HMRC costs because the tribunal somehow decided that the appeal was frivolous or unreasonable.

MP have a lot of experience of defending clients in tax tribunals. This is where most of their court battles with HMRC are fought out.

The arguments at a tribunal will be totally different to the Huitson case. These will be technical in nature focusing on specific and precise points of law, with none of the HR woollyness.

Incidentally, Tax Courts cannot consider HR claims, which is why the Huitson case started out in the High Court rather than a tribunal.