BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[Buzby]

ombudsman

The ombudsman requires that I complain to
HMRC first. And I'm sure they will give us the
' not whilst it's under appeal' line. However
in such an unusual case , there may be room
for manoeuvre. No harm in asking.

correct me if I am wrong, but we haven't actually appealed to SC yet, and even then it will take some months for SC to accept our appeal, so its not actually under appeal. is it worth getting lots of us trying to complain to HMRC individually or should we have a collective well worded response?

would be good to have our forum working on something positive.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

correct me if I am wrong, but we haven't actually appealed to SC yet, and even then it will take some months for SC to accept our appeal, so its not actually under appeal. is it worth getting lots of us trying to complain to HMRC individually or should we have a collective well worded response?

would be good to have our forum working on something positive.

The parliamentary ombudsman normally won't look at matters which are subject of court proceedings. That would include an application to appeal.

You can't complain directly to the ombudsman; you have to go through a member of parliament.

The HMRC complaints procedure needs to be exhausted first, which includes initial complaint, review and the Adjudicator.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/factsheets/co...-factsheet.pdf

[BolshieBastard]

They are not going to offer refunds so you would have to sue.

And who would you sue?

Everyone talks about Montpelier as though it's a single company. It isn't. It is a group of limited liability companies and it's quite fluid in nature. Notice I emphasise the word fluid.

Even if the actual company in your contractual agreement still exists, do you think it will have any assets?

Remember, it's limited liability.

What I'm trying to say, and this applies to others who have talked about suing them for negligence etc, is FORGET IT.

Harsh but that's the reality, and besides look where AJ has ended up. He just lost his latest round in the IoM courts last month and is facing total ruin.

Frankly DR, Im amazed at what you have posted there.

If this was an extract from Cowboy Builders, most people would be shaking their heads in disbelief. Disbelief that a company (who others have said may lose their credibility!) is set up in such a why as to be almost untouchable.

And Im being asked to put my faith, never mind my money, in their hands?

What a sad, sorry state of affairs.

If what you have posted would have been disclosed to me in 2001, I wouldnt be here now.

Absolutely shocking. And if the people who are adamant in their quest want to neg the hell out of me, fire away because that's insignificant in the scheme of things.

One final point, in a previous post, I mentioned I was told the scheme would only be available to 100 contractors after posting earlier in the thread the number was 300.

I want to make it clear the figure of 100 is incorrect. It should have been 300 as I stated in an earlier post.

[OnYourBikeGB]

Frankly DR, Im amazed at what you have posted there.

If this was an extract from Cowboy Builders, most people would be shaking their heads in disbelief. Disbelief that a company (who others have said may lose their credibility!) is set up in such a why as to be almost untouchable.

And Im being asked to put my faith, never mind my money, in their hands?

What a sad, sorry state of affairs.

If what you have posted would have been disclosed to me in 2001, I wouldnt be here now.

Absolutely shocking. And if the people who are adamant in their quest want to neg the hell out of me, fire away because that's insignificant in the scheme of things.

One final point, in a previous post, I mentioned I was told the scheme would only be available to 100 contractors after posting earlier in the thread the number was 300.

I want to make it clear the figure of 100 is incorrect. It should have been 300 as I stated in an earlier post.

I totally understand the outrage, but I'm not sure what is gained from settling with HMRC and suing MP - at this stage at least. I think they'd be extremely difficult to sue, surrounded as they are with tax and legal specialists. It could be an expensive and fruitless exercise. That said, of course you have every right to go down that path. But unless HMRC are prepared to cut a deal, and I doubt it, is there a point to taking legal action now, rather than waiting for the SC decision and acting then? If HMRC cut a reasonable deal, then maybe, otherwise that's a hell of battle you will end up with on two fronts.

Incidentally, I was also told, by AJ, about the 300 limit, to keep it under the radar, and that tax legislation couldn't be retrospective, and lots of other sh!t that I swallowed hook, line and sinker, and I feel duped as well. I was also advised not to take out a CTD as it was an indication of my accepting there was an issue with the tax planning, and there was the whole debacle over the accounts, by which time I had parted company with them. MP are not a company I'd recommend to anyone (though NW et al worked themselves into the ground, under-resourced as they were), but they are also our only hope - and if that is a bit optimistic, then they are at least buying us time, and they have kept their word on fighting the case.

[centurian]

But did you seriously expect MP to do otherwise. The first priority of any advisor (financial or other) is to cover their own backside. And for a company that specialises in finding the slightest crack in the law, do you really think they would leave open the door to being sued.

I think DR was a bit too firm in his assertion to "forget it", but the chances of suing MP are significantly lower than winning against HMRC.

As to the 300 limit, MP would no doubt claim that this had no bearing on BN66 - the problem was the expanding number of different providers exploting the treaty, not the number MP had.

[sjw]

I think DR was a bit too firm in his assertion to "forget it", but the chances of suing MP are significantly lower than winning against HMRC.

Sorry but I disagree. As previously noted we are trying to overturn a government finance bill - the result of which would actually reduces tax liabilities - its never been done before and who is going to allow that in this climate? As I said before a deal in the backroom would have been done long ago if anyone actually gave a fig. Which they dont because we've all written to our MP's and we all had the same response - 'don't involve me'

MP on the other hand blantantly lied from the outset, broke signed contractual obligations (yes I'm seriously miffed about the 4% they took when they had no right - they took it from funds that I had no control over and against my explicit objections), administered seriously inaccurate advice which in retrospect was probably given in order to protect their own interests (a CTD is not in any remote form an admission of liability - but if we'd been told best take one out a few of us might have gone 'hmm, hang on a minute'), have failed to provide even a half decent level of service at any point (as someone noted above poor NW was seriously stretched even during the period when they were raking in the fees) and have basically taken the p+ss from the word go.

And people on this forum still believe in them. Jesus I wish I'd realised earlier - if you could all send me 100 quid each I promise you'll have double back next month. No wait I tell a lie - make that treble.

So then folks if you want to motor on for another few years of uncertainty and non communication (well apart from 'we're really disappointed, nay, gobsmacked - tsk tsk can you believe it! here, have another fig leaf, it's armour proof you know') then you're welcome. Me I'd rather at least have a pop at a target I have a sporting chance of hitting.

And as I said before - the SC appeal to me is not our last chance - it's our last bargaining chip. I don't expect much concession - but we might get something....

[OnYourBikeGB]

And people on this forum still believe in them. Jesus I wish I'd realised earlier - if you could all send me 100 quid each I promise you'll have double back next month. No wait I tell a lie - make that treble.

I don't think any of us are looking too clever at the moment. We all believed in them, otherwise we wouldn't be here, you included. The split is on whether we should play for time / unlikely victory in SC, see if a deal can be reached with HMRC and / or sue MP. Personally, I think the chances of making a deal are about zero, and I have no idea how much it would cost to sue MP, but I doubt it'd come cheap, and I suspect that there are few here who can afford to pay HMRC and then finance a legal assault on MP. Unless, with a touch of gallows humour, legal aid was available. I want to stick with MP, not because I have blind faith in them, but because in the long run it will make little difference to me now and even a 1 in a 1000 chance is better than no chance at all. And also because I still believe that what HMRC has done is fundamentally and morally wrong.

Tempers are running high, and we are going round in circles. If HMRC are anywhere near thinking of a deal, the divisive nature of these debates is strengthening their hand, not that it needed it. Maybe in a week, once everyone has had time to do their sums etc, we should have a poll to measure the true strength of feeling, because there's a lot of voices being drowned out.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I am not going to defend everything MP have done. Some of their practices have been sharp to say the least, especially on the sales side.

Once the scheme was under investigation in mid-2003, they should have told anyone new who joined.

Other promoters like Steed and deGraaf didn't even start their schemes until after it was being investigated. Did they tell anyone? Nope. What about all the property developers, were they told? Nope.

It's the same with all the EBT/Loan schemes. HMRC started investigating these years ago. Did any promoters tell prospective clients? Of course not.

This practice of shall we say being enconomical with the truth is widespread in the industry.

I also think MP should not have been so quick to recall the 4% loans as soon as the 12-month enquiry deadline had passed. And, arguably they should have refunded this when discovery notices were issued.

On the other hand, unlike Consulting Overseas, Norla etc, they didn't shut up shop at the first sign of trouble.

So far, they have honoured their commitment to defend the scheme up to the House of Lords (now Supreme Court).

It is not just HMRC who are guilty of retrospective rewriting of history.

Some people on this forum are totally disingenuous - "if only I'd been told this or that at the time, I wouldn't have joined".

How much due diligence did people really do? It was an Isle of Man offshore tax avoidance scheme for god sake. What did you think, you were joining a pension scheme covered by the FSA?

Some people are now trying to claim that they were led to believe it was 100% cast-iron guaranteed. Bollocks!

MP made it absolutely clear that, if the scheme was challenged, they would defend it up to the HoL. That was the only guarantee you were given. If you chose to believe that this meant it was 100% assured, then that was pure wishful thinking.

Should they have expected retrospective legislation? Maybe.

Should they have kept the numbers low? Probably but then others who jumped on the bandwagon, like Steed and deGraaf, would have simply filled the gap. Were they greedy? Sure but coming from us that would be like the pot calling the kettle black.

Yes, MP have been crap at communicating. Yes, they've been a bit economical with the truth at times.

But we are where we are.

If some people want to go off and sue MP or try and cut a deal with HMRC, then fine. I no longer have the energy to argue why I feel this is folly.

To my mind the best bargaining chip we may have is if we all stick together. But if that's not going to happen, so be it.

[nick4notax]

Calm and patient

I don't think any of us are looking too clever at the moment. We all believed in them, otherwise we wouldn't be here, you included. The split is on whether we should play for time / unlikely victory in SC, see if a deal can be reached with HMRC and / or sue MP. Personally, I think the chances of making a deal are about zero, and I have no idea how much it would cost to sue MP, but I doubt it'd come cheap, and I suspect that there are few here who can afford to pay HMRC and then finance a legal assault on MP. Unless, with a touch of gallows humour, legal aid was available. I want to stick with MP, not because I have blind faith in them, but because in the long run it will make little difference to me now and even a 1 in a 1000 chance is better than no chance at all. And also because I still believe that what HMRC has done is fundamentally and morally wrong.

Tempers are running high, and we are going round in circles. If HMRC are anywhere near thinking of a deal, the divisive nature of these debates is strengthening their hand, not that it needed it. Maybe in a week, once everyone has had time to do their sums etc, we should have a poll to measure the true strength of feeling, because there's a lot of voices being drowned out.

Exactly my thoughts too. Montpelier have been thoroughly supportive and professional to me and I've been in the scheme since inception! Let's trust our instincts, trust MP and have a little faith that we are right, what we did WAS completely legal and what Brown/Balls/Timms have cooked up must eventually be torn up. I, for one, wrote to my member of parliament again on Monday. I suggest we all (if you haven't already) continue to hound them about this travesty. After all, what else can you do. Talk of legal action against MP is just plain stupid. We need to regroup and unite again for the SC hearing and then possible on to Strasbourg.

[ONO]

I am not going to defend everything MP have done. Some of their practices have been sharp to say the least, especially on the sales side.

Once the scheme was under investigation in mid-2003, they should have told anyone new who joined.

Other promoters like Steed and deGraaf didn't even start their schemes until after it was being investigated. Did they tell anyone? Nope. What about all the property developers, were they told? Nope.

It's the same with all the EBT/Loan schemes. HMRC started investigating these years ago. Did any promoters tell prospective clients? Of course not.

This practice of shall we say being enconomical with the truth is widespread in the industry.

I also think MP should not have been so quick to recall the 4% loans as soon as the 12-month enquiry deadline had passed. And, arguably they should have refunded this when discovery notices were issued.

On the other hand, unlike Consulting Overseas, Norla etc, they didn't shut up shop at the first sign of trouble.

So far, they have honoured their commitment to defend the scheme up to the House of Lords (now Supreme Court).

It is not just HMRC who are guilty of retrospective rewriting of history.

Some people on this forum are totally disingenuous - "if only I'd been told this or that at the time, I wouldn't have joined".

How much due diligence did people really do? It was an Isle of Man offshore tax avoidance scheme for god sake. What did you think, you were joining a pension scheme covered by the FSA?

Some people are now trying to claim that they were led to believe it was 100% cast-iron guaranteed. Bollocks!

MP made it absolutely clear that, if the scheme was challenged, they would defend it up to the HoL. That was the only guarantee you were given. If you chose to believe that this meant it was 100% assured, then that was pure wishful thinking.

Should they have expected retrospective legislation? Maybe.

Should they have kept the numbers low? Probably but then others who jumped on the bandwagon, like Steed and deGraaf, would have simply filled the gap. Were they greedy? Sure but coming from us that would be like the pot calling the kettle black.

Yes, MP have been crap at communicating. Yes, they've been a bit economical with the truth at times.

But we are where we are.

If some people want to go off and sue MP or try and cut a deal with HMRC, then fine. I no longer have the energy to argue why I feel this is folly.

To my mind the best bargaining chip we may have is if we all stick together. But if that's not going to happen, so be it.

Well said!

That articulates very accurately the way I see it too.