BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[slogger]

mp responses?

have contacted my MP by letter and email (recently once but twice last year) - no response whatsoever - he's Conservative MP Mark Prisk (supposedly small business minister last I heard) - whats the next step in this - is there a formal complaints procedure re MPs not responding to constituents?

[Emigre]

After seeing Santa's Avatar change, I thought I would scour the Internet to find something witty to add to my user account... look what I found.

Moira Stuart caught in tax furore | AccountingWEB


The official face of HMRC in recent years has attracted media attention for channelling her fees through a personal services company.

The BBC newsreader, who fronts the Self Assessment advertising campaign with the catchphrase "tax doesn't have to be taxing", set up the firm that entitled her to pay corporation tax at the small companies rate of 21% on some of her earnings.

The Telegraph reported that Companies House filings reveal she is sole director and shareholder of Moira Stuart Limited. The accounts show that £22,607 was paid into the company in 2010-11, and after £1,749 of administrative expenses, she paid £4,380 in corporation tax on the profit.

The arrangement is legitimate for freelancers, but HMRC is supposed to take action against people who it judges to be "disguised employees".

You bunch of Tulips... did your homework again I see.

No rant today.... yet

This witch hunt for tax avoiders is such a non-story. How else is she going to be paid? She is NOT employed by HMRC for their campaign. HMRC wanted Moira Stuart's face. The rights to her face were owned by Moira Stuart Limited. Therefore pay Moira Stuart Limited. If anything I am surprised at how little they paid her. She could front several campaigns. In the eyes of people like Peston, how many employments are people who are in business supposed to have. Is everyone supposed to be an employee of every client?

And if Peston and co are trying to highlight hypocrisy by the public sector hiring individuals' services through limited companies then they have totally missed the point on that too. This story was nothing more than pure gutter press. It was the cheapest most meaningless story on the planet falling far below the standards of responsible journalism expected of the BBC. Peston should be fired and sent to work for a red top.

[portseven]

have contacted my MP by letter and email (recently once but twice last year) - no response whatsoever - he's Conservative MP Mark Prisk (supposedly small business minister last I heard) - whats the next step in this - is there a formal complaints procedure re MPs not responding to constituents?

What about turning up at a surgery??

I wrote to mine, last year but didn't get a response, after further investigation it appears it disappeared in to a spam mailbox. I have since had a good response from him, he is chasing treasury for me and has had personal experience of freelancer tax issues.

[portseven]

Putting together a time-line that we can use to tell a story, how is this for a start, I would like to highlight facts that indicate misleading of parliament and other relevant info - Can we flesh this out a little?

*************

1987 - Padmore legislation - Retrospective law agreed, but none of the people affected were required to pay retrospective tax - Hansard

1999 - IR35 Introduced under direction of Stephen Timms MP, making may consultants unsure of their tax position - link

May 2001 - Montpelier scheme starts operating. Users register their Trusts with HMRC (full disclosure!)

July 2002 - HMRC issues a bulletin to all tax offices advising them to report any use of the scheme to a central office. They say they "are considering how best to challenge the scheme". - Technical Exchange 63

March 2003 - Promoters of the "Suo Motu" version of the scheme decide, for whatever reason, to approach HMRC to negotiate a settlement. A deal is agreed whereby the users are let off from paying any interest or national insurance, and income tax is discounted. - link

May 2003 - 4 test case users of the Montpelier scheme receive enquiry notices for tax year 2001/2. HMRC states its intention to pursue the cases through the Special Commissioners.

2003 - 2006 - Users continue to receive enquiry letters. HMRC cites various arguments as to why it believes the scheme does not work. However, there is never any mention of Padmore, 1987 or retrospective legislation.

1 Aug 2004 - Requirement to Disclose all Avoidance scheme - link

6 June 2005- MTM (Montpelier) advised that HMRC issued scheme reference number 64663083

11 Dec 2006- Letter from MTM stating that Mr Brannigan from HMRC reported "likely line of attack is S739 TA 1988, MTM plan to get test case before Commissioners in Q4 2007

1 Nov 2007 - HMRC Discuss scheme and decide to use 'clarification' of padmore case - see link

May / June 2008 - Debate of 2008 Finance Act in HoC, many including David Gauke opposing - Hansard

July 2008 - BN66 Becomes Law

September 2008 - Letter from HMRC stating that BN66 is now law and that we should pay up and that is it's HMRC;s opinion this it is compatible with the Human Rights Act and that there are no grounds Judicial Review application would succeed.

7 July 2009 - Exchange of communication between Stephen Timm's and Committee on Human rights, showing that they were not consulted in the drafting of BN66 - link

2 Feb 2009 - Note from HMRC acknowleging application for Judicial Review, and stating that they don't beleive it will change anything, whatever the outcome.

28 Jan 2010 - Court of Appeal - Judgement

30 September 2010 - Finance Act 2010 memo saying that in future any retrospective measures must be passed by JCHR - link - To prevent our mess again!!

Jan 2012 - Supreme court refuse permission to hear our case, thus upholding retrospective nature of BN66

Feb 2012 - Retrospection applied to Barclay's for maximum of 3 months - link

Feb 2012 - Retrospective tax for Ports authority waived - link

[GBHuhd]

Liability Calc

Hi All,

Having had my head buried in the sand for the last few years i finally plucked up the courage to ask Montpelier to calculate my liability, its pretty horrific. Anyway - i just wanted to check if anybody else had their numbers by Montpelier confirmed by a closure notice from HMRC (ie are they accurate) ?

I am trying to make arrangements to cover this somehow and would hate to be stung for more as i am trying to get my head around this number and that's bad enough.

Many Thanks

ps - not referring to interest here, but the pure tax and class 4 NI figures..

[moira under the stairs]

What about turning up at a surgery??

I wrote to mine, last year but didn't get a response, after further investigation it appears it disappeared in to a spam mailbox. I have since had a good response from him, he is chasing treasury for me and has had personal experience of freelancer tax issues.

Just sent a reminder email to my MP have also requested a meeting at their Surgery, if no response next stage turning up at the Surgery door step.

[reckless]

Putting together a timeline that we can use to tell a story, how is this for a start, I would like to highlight facts that indicate misleading of parliment and other relevant info - Can we flesh this out a little?

*************

1987 - Padmore legislation - Retospective law agreed, but none of the people affected were required to pay retrospective tax - Hansard Quotes Needed

1999 - IR35 Introduced, making may consultants unsure of their tax position (could also reference 1986 - 1994 - Stephen Timms - Working for Ovum ;-))

2001 - Montpelier market scheme to contractor community

2001 - Technical note within HMRC acknowledging the scheme, and that it works

1 Aug 2004 - Requirement to disclose all avoidance schemes

1 Nov 2007 - HMRC Discuss scheme and decide to use 'clarification' of padmore case

2008 - Debate of act in HoC, David Gauke opposing, but got distrated in refering to hansard due to 'whats that music' comment.

2009 - Exchange of commumcation between Stephen Timms and Committee on Human rights, showing that they were not consulted in the drafting of BN66

2009 - Brannigans note, now using retrospection rather than clarification

2010 - Court of appeal

2010 - Finance act outlawing retrospection

Jan 2012 - Supreme court refuse permission to hear our case, thus upholding retrospective nature of BN66

Feb 2012 - Retrospection applied to Barclays for maximum of 3 months

Feb 2012 - Retrospective tax for Ports authority waived.

Good timeline - the only thing I can see missing is the letter from HMRC asking us to wait until the outcome of four cases to be taken to Tax Tribunal - I recall that may have been 2006 or perhaps 2007 - best check your file to get actual date.

[TalkingCheese]

Putting together a timeline that we can use to tell a story, how is this for a start, I would like to highlight facts that indicate misleading of parliment and other relevant info - Can we flesh this out a little?

*************

1987 - Padmore legislation - Retospective law agreed, but none of the people affected were required to pay retrospective tax - Hansard Quotes Needed

1999 - IR35 Introduced, making may consultants unsure of their tax position (could also reference 1986 - 1994 - Stephen Timms - Working for Ovum ;-))

2001 - Montpelier market scheme to contractor community

2001 - Technical note within HMRC acknowledging the scheme, and that it works

1 Aug 2004 - Requirement to disclose all avoidance schemes

1 Nov 2007 - HMRC Discuss scheme and decide to use 'clarification' of padmore case

2008 - Debate of act in HoC, David Gauke opposing, but got distrated in refering to hansard due to 'whats that music' comment.

2009 - Exchange of commumcation between Stephen Timms and Committee on Human rights, showing that they were not consulted in the drafting of BN66

2009 - Brannigans note, now using retrospection rather than clarification

2010 - Court of appeal

2010 - Finance act outlawing retrospection

Jan 2012 - Supreme court refuse permission to hear our case, thus upholding retrospective nature of BN66

Feb 2012 - Retrospection applied to Barclays for maximum of 3 months

Feb 2012 - Retrospective tax for Ports authority waived.

You can also get some from here : BN66 timeline
...as well as DRs post at the start of this thread.

[TalkingCheese]

...2010 - Finance act outlawing retrospection...

PS, what is this ?

Ah, is it this: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/j...UKE_300910.pdf

Havent seen that before. In this it appears to me that Gauke has agreed to consult JCHR prior to any retro laws being passed in the future. If this had happened in 2008 it is very likely that we wouldnt be in this mess as JCHR condemn the retro clause of S.58.

[Emigre]

Putting together a timeline that we can use to tell a story, how is this for a start, I would like to highlight facts that indicate misleading of parliment and other relevant info - Can we flesh this out a little?

*************

1987 - Padmore legislation - Retospective law agreed, but none of the people affected were required to pay retrospective tax - Hansard Quotes Needed

1999 - IR35 Introduced, making may consultants unsure of their tax position (could also reference 1986 - 1994 - Stephen Timms - Working for Ovum ;-))

2001 - Montpelier market scheme to contractor community

2001 - Technical note within HMRC acknowledging the scheme, and that it works

1 Aug 2004 - Requirement to disclose all avoidance schemes

2006 - HMRC send letter saying they intend to take 4 test cases to tribunal (this never happened)

1 Nov 2007 - HMRC Discuss scheme and decide to use 'clarification' of padmore case

2008 - Debate of act in HoC, David Gauke opposing, but got distrated in refering to hansard due to 'whats that music' comment.

2009 - Exchange of commumcation between Stephen Timms and Committee on Human rights, showing that they were not consulted in the drafting of BN66

2009 - Brannigans note, now using retrospection rather than clarification

2010 - Court of appeal

2010 - Finance act outlawing retrospection

Jan 2012 - Supreme court refuse permission to hear our case, thus upholding retrospective nature of BN66

Feb 2012 - Retrospection applied to Barclays for maximum of 3 months

Feb 2012 - Retrospective tax for Ports authority waived.

As much as it might sell newspapers I think there is no relevance of Timms and Ovum. I share your sentiment but I do not believe that it adds to our case. However, you may wish to add:

Suo Motu agreement
HMRC argument stating scheme does not work due to Archer Shee v Baker. Even Parker agreed that this supported our case.
You should also include the negative responses to most of the FOIs by DR and others.
All income fully disclosed each year on SARs, nothing hidden
Other promoters than Montpelier
Rees Rules
Dim Prawn's statement in December 2004 relating to employment was a very high profile satement of intent by Parliament, not directly applicable to our circumstances but nonetheless gave an indication of Parliament's views on "acceptable retrospection" regarding the wider issue of "employment". (ie ok back to the day we said we would do something).

Who are the targeted recipients of the timeline?

Whilst the news headlines have shouted about what is going to happen to Barclays, there is nothing in the legislature at present. There may be a draft by the end of next week but not yet.