BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[sjw]

Tax/NIC

Sign up with the HMRC gateway and this will give you the tax/nic suspended for each year.

https://online.hmrc.gov.uk

Your HMRC Services -> Self Assessment -> View account -> Tax Years

Then select each year you were in the scheme.

The figure you are looking for is Less other adjustments. If you click on this it should show the payments on account which are currently suspended pending appeal.

Interest

Then use my interest calculations in the 1st post of this thread to estimate the % uplift for each tax year.

Thanks DR but since I paid Montpelier over 10K per year for 5 years to manage my tax affairs I find it really hard to understand why I would need to do this.

And in response to not pointing the finger at Montpelier I have two observations to make - firstly I was told on joining the scheme that the numbers of invitations would be limited to 100 for obvious reasons. It turns out that not only was the scheme used by at least 10 times that number, but it was already shining brightly on HMRC's screen at that point in time. Secondly I was told (in black and white - I still have the presentation) that even if the worst came to the worst we would be able to restate our returns on a self employed basis which increased our liability but was still tax efficient. What happened to that avenue?

And don't even get me started about the 4% charge...

Finally - I don't see the Supreme Court as our last chance - I see it as our last bargaining chip. Someone said that HMRC dont care when they collect - well yes, probably true, but I suspect with today's resource and funding limitations they would be more than happy to wind it up and move on. I for one would be happy to pay the tax outstanding if we could reach an agreement about the interest charged and use of pension provisions. After all, they did it for Goldman's bonus scheme, and one of the original arguments levied against us was that we were taking advantage of a tax treatment not open to other UK residents - so surely that argument can be applied in reverse?

[Cantthinkof1]

Count me in on that !!

An extract from sjw ---- "I for one would be happy to pay the tax outstanding if we could reach an agreement about the interest charged and use of pension provisions. "

---- Count me in on that !

[Cosmo]

Thanks DR but since I paid Montpelier over 10K per year for 5 years to manage my tax affairs I find it really hard to understand why I would need to do this.

Have you asked them to do it?

[sjw]

Have you asked them to do it?

Twice.

[Dieselpower]

MP Letter

All:

MP sent out a letter apparantly saying, inter alia,
" We intend to appeal subject to discussions with client and counsel....we are sure that Pwc will also appeal the shiner case....."

[BolshieBastard]

I see that MP are getting a bit of stick from some quarters. I recall attending one of their sales pitches in 2002. The scheme as presented obviously seemed attractive (in comparison to the then current fears regarding IR35 and possible retrospective investigations - ironic isn't it?!). One thing was made clear though - although MP's QC was convinced the scheme was sound - it was not ultimately guaranteed. Nor was retrospective investigation. I however then specifically asked about the possibility of retrospective changes in the law. The response from MTM's Lawyer/QC (a Mr Gallagher?) was 'the last time that happened in England was in 1066 after the Norman Invasion!' Well, Norman the Conqueror and Gordon Brown now have something in common!

As far as I see, MP have honoured their commitment so far. To be honest, when I started the scheme, I thought I had certainty in the law and uncertainty about MTM (MP) - how times change!

Like a previous posting said, when I tell people about this whole retrospective legislation business, they say 'but the governement can't do that - that's wrong! I was the one who posted the record breaking proposal on Nick Clegg's 'Your Freedom' site asking for suggestions to abolish unfair governement legislation (now kicked into the long grass)- remember that one? Come to think of it, I might just drop him a reminder.

So there may yet be hope in the SC appeal. Meantime, I intend to both save what I can and try and make my existing set-aside money work harder over the next 18 months, to outstrip the 2.5% interest penalty. Gold and silver seem attractive bets.

I would like to thank all the regular contributers to this thread, especially DR. It is good to know you are not alone.

Chins up comrades - let's hope for the best but plan for the worst.

I attended WG's presentation in Liverpool in 2001. He was quite clear about this. He said the scheme was watertight, it was a legal loophole used by a number of high profile public figures in business (I could name a couple but wont due to possible legalities but one owns an airline, a train franchise, a media company and until they were sold off, a high street music store).

If WG had uttered the words, in whatever form during that presentation, that the scheme wasnt guaranteed, I would not have signed up and I know at least one of my colleagues who attended at the time would definitely not have signed up (he was extremely cautious and had been operating as IR35 caught since he didnt want the risk).

[BarneyCool]

Use of pension provisions????

Thanks DR but since I paid Montpelier over 10K per year for 5 years to manage my tax affairs I find it really hard to understand why I would need to do this.

And in response to not pointing the finger at Montpelier I have two observations to make - firstly I was told on joining the scheme that the numbers of invitations would be limited to 100 for obvious reasons. It turns out that not only was the scheme used by at least 10 times that number, but it was already shining brightly on HMRC's screen at that point in time. Secondly I was told (in black and white - I still have the presentation) that even if the worst came to the worst we would be able to restate our returns on a self employed basis which increased our liability but was still tax efficient. What happened to that avenue?

And don't even get me started about the 4% charge...

Finally - I don't see the Supreme Court as our last chance - I see it as our last bargaining chip. Someone said that HMRC dont care when they collect - well yes, probably true, but I suspect with today's resource and funding limitations they would be more than happy to wind it up and move on. I for one would be happy to pay the tax outstanding if we could reach an agreement about the interest charged and use of pension provisions. After all, they did it for Goldman's bonus scheme, and one of the original arguments levied against us was that we were taking advantage of a tax treatment not open to other UK residents - so surely that argument can be applied in reverse?

sjw - Use of pension provisions - Could you elaborate on this! Are you saying that we can now handover our pension pot to pay some of the bill?

[sjw]

Twice.

And one final point - someone said won't you feel cheated if eventually we win and you've already settled? An emphatic NO - I'm sick and tired of the stess and the uncertainly and I'll more than happily trade that sliver of diminishing hope for a chance to move on and forget that I ever heard of Montpelier and it's magic bloody wand.

[screwthis]

Thanks DR but since I paid Montpelier over 10K per year for 5 years to manage my tax affairs I find it really hard to understand why I would need to do this.

And in response to not pointing the finger at Montpelier I have two observations to make - firstly I was told on joining the scheme that the numbers of invitations would be limited to 100 for obvious reasons. It turns out that not only was the scheme used by at least 10 times that number, but it was already shining brightly on HMRC's screen at that point in time. Secondly I was told (in black and white - I still have the presentation) that even if the worst came to the worst we would be able to restate our returns on a self employed basis which increased our liability but was still tax efficient. What happened to that avenue?

And don't even get me started about the 4% charge...

Finally - I don't see the Supreme Court as our last chance - I see it as our last bargaining chip. Someone said that HMRC dont care when they collect - well yes, probably true, but I suspect with today's resource and funding limitations they would be more than happy to wind it up and move on. I for one would be happy to pay the tax outstanding if we could reach an agreement about the interest charged and use of pension provisions. After all, they did it for Goldman's bonus scheme, and one of the original arguments levied against us was that we were taking advantage of a tax treatment not open to other UK residents - so surely that argument can be applied in reverse?

I echo your sentiments.

Has anyone asked MP for an opinion on whether we can or they would on our behalf be able to negotiate the self employed route and/or submit expenses and pay a "fair" or average amount into a pension.

[sjw]

sjw - Use of pension provisions - Could you elaborate on this! Are you saying that we can now handover our pension pot to pay some of the bill?

My point is this - I suspect like most I paid very little into my pension during the years I was on the scheme. If HMRC now want to restate my tax return for those years then I want to be able to pay a reasonable proportion of that into a pension scheme. You still need to find the money to do so, but it's tax free, therefore doesn't attract interest and the money is at least still yours on retirement.