BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[ir35amnesia]

Montpelier Tax Planning (Isle of Man ) Ltd in liquidation

Discussion from last year about this: http://http://forums.contractoruk.co...limited-2.html

Had a look at this "discussion". Yes that is the same company BUT discussion killed off with a post from Donkey R on 2 Sept 2011 stating:
"(Those of you in the know will know who the 'horse' is.)I have it from the horse's mouth that this is a non-story.It is business as usual for all clients of Montpelier.The fight against BN66 goes on."

NOT sure you can say something is a "non-story" when a company goes into liquidation owing creditors £7 million.

[iansbud]

Had a look at this "discussion". Yes that is the same company BUT discussion killed off with a post from Donkey R on 2 Sept 2011 stating:
"(Those of you in the know will know who the 'horse' is.)I have it from the horse's mouth that this is a non-story.It is business as usual for all clients of Montpelier.The fight against BN66 goes on."

NOT sure you can say something is a "non-story" when a company goes into liquidation owing creditors £7 million.

could it be they shut down that company soon prior to the final announcement of the rejection of our leave to appeal - simply to ensure that they do not pay back all of those clients, myself and my wife included, who were promised that we would be repaid 4% of our fees should the scheme be proved to not work.

I have tried to contact Montpelier regarding getting this refund we were promised, and they have been strangely silent...

and yes i know different clients were on different deals, that's just what we were on no doubt among many others.

[Disgusted of Coventry]

I believe that Barclays disclosed the scheme under DOTAS rules. I think it probably gave HMRC a good indicator of a date to go for. Disclosures have to made within days of schemes first being used or marketed.

If they used the scheme prior to that timeframe they would be liable to severe penalties.

Am I just making a mountain out of a molehill? How does this measure compare with BN66 (bearing in mind the phrases fully retrospective & wholly exceptional)?

The time between the announcement of this scheme and its retrospective measure is 3 months, whereas the latency of BN66 is what ... 5,6 years?

I mean... is this worth using as part of presentations to our local Members of Parliament?

[ir35amnesia]

Montpelier Tax Planning (Isle of Man ) Ltd in liquidation

could it be they shut down that company soon prior to the final announcement of the rejection of our leave to appeal - simply to ensure that they do not pay back all of those clients, myself and my wife included, who were promised that we would be repaid 4% of our fees should the scheme be proved to not work.

I have tried to contact Montpelier regarding getting this refund we were promised, and they have been strangely silent...

and yes i know different clients were on different deals, that's just what we were on no doubt among many others.

Firstly you need to check that the company that promised the 4% refund was in fact Montpelier Tax Planning.
If this is the company then you need to raise your "refund query" with the Liquidator - Mr G. Noble Abacus House, Mona Street, Douglas, IM1 3AE.

[jeanvaljean]

Budget submissions - time is running out

It is – but I think it would be politically difficult to achieve. It would be much easier to make the case that interest should not be charged as there was no tax charge prior to Aug 2008. The beauty of this argument is that as soon as one agrees with that, the whole basis for the retrospection falls away.

There were about 3,000 scheme users and a significant percentage of those would have to write to their MPs for this to have a chance to work. The MPs must be made aware of the pain that this legislation could cause.

You can make suggestions for the budget here:

Budget representation - HM Treasury

Done mine too.

[Emigre]

Am I just making a mountain out of a molehill? How does this measure compare with BN66 (bearing in mind the phrases fully retrospective & wholly exceptional)?

The time between the announcement of this scheme and its retrospective measure is 3 months, whereas the latency of BN66 is what ... 5,6 years?

I mean... is this worth using as part of presentations to our local Members of Parliament?

You are of course right. There is no comparison. At the time Jane Kennedy stated that Padmore was retrospective in effect back to the war. It wasn't true of course. But what is true is that the impact of BN66 goes back to 1987. It's intent is to be retrospective for 21 years.

Most banks don't go bust on a Barclays style event. Individuals do. If Barclays went bust now it is doubtful they would get any state handouts. If we go bust now, as a result of S58, many have stated they will need benefits.

A few years ago I divorced and my ex took the most of the assets in settlement, so I have few of my own. If I go bust I would no longer be able to be a Company Director, would not be able to get a job in the City (due to credit checks) where I have worked for 25 years. I would also be barred from acting as an accountant.

In short, I would be highly skilled yet more or less unemployable. Where is the logic in that?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

NOT sure you can say something is a "non-story" when a company goes into liquidation owing creditors £7 million.

The only thing that the vast majority of people here care about is whether MP will continue the fight. MP have said that the liquidation of this company has no bearing on this.

There have been lots of news events over the past couple of years eg. WG's arrest, the HMRC raid on their offices, half the staff in the IoM being layed off. We could worry about all these things but what's the point? It's not like we haven't already got enough to worry about.

Until such time as we get a letter from MP, saying that they are throwing in the towel, we just have to assume that it's business as usual.

By the way, it's been a while, how are you?

[BrilloPad]

Britain's broken tax system – Telegraph Blogs

"A common complaint about the UK tax regime is that it is one rule for the big guys, in the sense that they have used tolerated forms of tax avoidance to pay what they feel like, and an altogether different one for the little guy, who must pay his taxes or woe betide. There is something in this argument. The Revenue's relationship with the tax lawyers who advise big corporations can be cosy to the point of intimate. The amount of tax paid seems to be a matter of negotiation rather than legislation. The same is not true of small businesses, who are frequently treated with a degree of suspicion normally reserved for known crooks and fraudsters. This is not right."

[moira under the stairs]

The only thing that the vast majority of people here care about is whether MP will continue the fight. MP have said that the liquidation of this company has no bearing on this.

There have been lots of news events over the past couple of years eg. WG's arrest, the HMRC raid on their offices, half the staff in the IoM being layed off. We could worry about all these things but what's the point? It's not like we haven't already got enough to worry about.

Until such time as we get a letter from MP, saying that they are throwing in the towel, we just have to assume that it's business as usual.

By the way, it's been a while, how are you?

Agree... why sweat the small stuff ... can we influence a bearing on that.. NO ! does it have an impact on us ... not really, are MontP continuing the fight ... YES ... get over it !!!

[ir35amnesia]

Montpelier Tax Planning (Isle of Man ) Ltd in liquidation

The only thing that the vast majority of people here care about is whether MP will continue the fight. MP have said that the liquidation of this company has no bearing on this.

There have been lots of news events over the past couple of years eg. WG's arrest, the HMRC raid on their offices, half the staff in the IoM being layed off. We could worry about all these things but what's the point? It's not like we haven't already got enough to worry about.

Until such time as we get a letter from MP, saying that they are throwing in the towel, we just have to assume that it's business as usual.

Agreed except i think it should "kill off" all talk about suing MP because my guess is that the only company that could have been sued is now in liquidation and not worth pursuing.