BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[FredBasset]

Me too, I'm with the Donkey.

[BolshieBastard]

There's a lot of stuff being talked here about should have done due dilligence.

The people who I attended the WG presentation did do a due dilligence test. It came back with nothing untoward at that time.

But since then I've found out that the 300 limit WG said would be held so as to stay under HMRC's (then IR's) radar turns out not to have been true. Over 2000 contractors were enrolled.

What difference does 100, 300 or 2500 make? To HMRC probably nothing. But WG told us 300 would be the limit to keep it off their radar and not make the scheme look like it is abusing the DTA rather than just taking advantage of the loophole.

This wouldnt come up because the 300 limit was exceeded after due dilligence was done.

When due dilligence was done in pre 2002, MP didnt have a web of companies it is now stated in a previous post on here. Due dilligence showed this scheme was run by MP and MTM.

It is now suggested there are 'a web' of companies involved. I mean just wtf are ratherglen(?) or whoever it is who ocassionally decides to update us in print? I hadnt heard of them until a few years ago.

Again, all these other companies appear to have been set up post 2002 and post due dilligence.

I was specifically told not to bother taking a CTD since MP was convinced of its position and that 'we will win so keep your money out of a CTD.' People have said you could have put the money in savings instead!

Really? So you tax advisors say 'this scheme is watertight, we will win. Dont bother with a CTD' and you are going to put that money into a savings acount and do nothing with it? So what was the point of being in the scheme if you were going to lock its benefits (I use that term, loosely) away so you dont touch them?

Due dilligence wouldnt show that one up!

In all the time I've been following the 3 threads on what is now BN66 and the appeals, it was often stated MP's reputation was at stake and they stood to lose millions if they lost.

Well, it seems their reputation is taking a further hit in light of recent events and as for losing millions if they lost, why have they got little money now, cutting back and making lots of people redundant?

I find it difficult to believe MP have lost so much money on this case seeing as we are also told 'ours' is not the main case before the courts.

Just where has all this money gone? Due dilligence wouldnt show that up.

Anyway, Im sick of all this and am going to spend some time lurking.

[moira under the stairs]

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.

DR wiv u m8.

It's a shame we have a few naive bu99ers on this forum, please chaps if you wish to try and settle somehow you are more than welcome to do so (we wish you well), go off into the sunset and leave the forum for those that wish to carry on.

The fight for justice continues

[DonkeyRhubarb]

If MP had capped the numbers at 300, deGraaf and Steed would have just signed up more people.

I'm not saying they shouldn't have capped it but it wouldn't have stopped the scheme snowballing.

And besides nothing MP did, or did not do, would have stopped one property developer putting £60,000,000 through the scheme.

You are blaming the wrong people for the scheme snowballing.

Responsibility for that lies with HMRC, and HMRC alone. They took their eye off the ball and sat on their fat lazy arses for 7 years.

[SantaClaus]

If MP had capped the numbers at 300, deGraaf and Steed would have just signed up more people.

I'm not saying they shouldn't have capped it but it wouldn't have stopped the scheme snowballing.

And besides nothing MP did, or did not do, would have stopped one property developer putting £60,000,000 through the scheme.

You are blaming the wrong people for the scheme snowballing.

Responsibility for that lies with HMRC, and HMRC alone. They took their eye off the ball and sat on their fat lazy arses for 7 years.

Let's not forget the Judiciary in all this. They spent 9 months on the golf course and cobbled together a verdict based on assumptions we know are untrue in what seems like 5 minutes.

[screwthis]

If MP had capped the numbers at 300, deGraaf and Steed would have just signed up more people.

I'm not saying they shouldn't have capped it but it wouldn't have stopped the scheme snowballing.

And besides nothing MP did, or did not do, would have stopped one property developer putting £60,000,000 through the scheme.

You are blaming the wrong people for the scheme snowballing.

Responsibility for that lies with HMRC, and HMRC alone. They took their eye off the ball and sat on their fat lazy arses for 7 years.

I wonder how relevant this whole under the radar argument is given that the details of what we were doing were always going to be fully disclosed?

Secondly I remember the initial presentation with New Media... I was advised to put the money aside and not spend it until such time as the SA had been approved. To me this was common sense. I never expected it to be fool proof. I was told it was legal but it was obvious that the revenue would know about it and not like it.

It is VERY unfortunate for those that don't have the cash to hand to cover the liability especially as you may not have been able to hold the cash as planned due to unexpected circumstances. However if you were able to put the money aside but chose not to then you have to admit that this was a very high risk strategy.

I and I expect others entered into this scheme as at the time it looked as if IR35 was going to make self employed status impossible and the difference between this and full paye was big enough to take the risk and quite frankly being treated as a disgused employee was unacceptable to me. I was angry over IR35 and if I'm honest there was an element of "well if you're going to do that then f*** you, you're going to get bugger all".

I saddens me that since the inception of IR35, umbrella companies have sprung up that allow you to keep up to 80% of your income (see the ad at the top of this page). The difference between this and the MTM/MP take home after fees is tiny given the downside we are now facing.


In any event MTM may have been dishonest over the numbers and should have told us it was under investigation but we knew we were playing with fire and ultimately it was our choice (Some of my then colleages went to the presentation with me but walked away).


We are in the position we are in. I am going to fight every avenue I can but accept that it was my choice and my potential liability.

MP have done their best to defend this and without them a lot of us would have been picked off instantly.

I am now viewing this money as gone but as I said will continue to pursue every legal avenue and will delay payment as long as I can.

[NO TO RETRO]

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.

Absolutely 100% bang on the money!
I have nothing but my whole-hearted agreement to add.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I wonder how relevant this whole under the radar argument is given that the details of what we were doing were always going to be fully disclosed?

Look at the date on this HMRC internal document. It was published before any tax returns had even been filed.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...Issue%2063.pdf

The scheme was known to HMRC right from the very start. It did not need to be detected by any radar.

This is why the whole thing stinks and why our anger should be 100% directed at HMRC.

[TAF4]

I can understand the emotional outpourings but they do not add value to this thread. It would appear that even DR is getting exasperated by the attempts to blame MP for the decisions we took.

I am in this to the death I'm afraid. The numbers are large and getting larger so I have little option. My working days are also limited due to age so 'saving' my way out of trouble isn't a viable option either.

The lessons I have taken from the last few days are:
The Judges to date have applied the law as it stands today and accepted the Padmore gambit. To do otherwise is above their pay grade.
The HR argument put forward by MP appears simplistic but captures all the issues effectively. If the JR and CoA were always unable to challenge the law as it stands then our brief didn't need a heavier argument since the roadmap from the outset was always that we would lose. This is a Chess game after all, not Snakes & Ladders.
The SC therefore is the only pay grade left and we know they have the power to challenge the Padmore gambit and therefore the retrospection justification. That, after all, is the only piece of law that we are challenging.
Finally I am comforted by the lack of communication from MP. They appear to be keeping their powder dry. Any communication MP provide to their clients will be made available to Hector by one means or another so we are not going be provided with reassurances or justification.

My Wife and I get enormous comfort from this forum knowing that there are hundreds of participants sharing the same concerns and perhaps further thousands lurking (or in denial). Therefore I am willing to wade through the wailing and gnashing of teeth to find the sensible posts from DR, TSBT, and other leading players that help to keep me sane.

[moira under the stairs]

I can understand the emotional outpourings but they do not add value to this thread. It would appear that even DR is getting exasperated by the attempts to blame MP for the decisions we took.

I am in this to the death I'm afraid. The numbers are large and getting larger so I have little option. My working days are also limited due to age so 'saving' my way out of trouble isn't a viable option either.

The lessons I have taken from the last few days are:
The Judges to date have applied the law as it stands today and accepted the Padmore gambit. To do otherwise is above their pay grade.
The HR argument put forward by MP appears simplistic but captures all the issues effectively. If the JR and CoA were always unable to challenge the law as it stands then our brief didn't need a heavier argument since the roadmap from the outset was always that we would lose. This is a Chess game after all, not Snakes & Ladders.
The SC therefore is the only pay grade left and we know they have the power to challenge the Padmore gambit and therefore the retrospection justification. That, after all, is the only piece of law that we are challenging.
Finally I am comforted by the lack of communication from MP. They appear to be keeping their powder dry. Any communication MP provide to their clients will be made available to Hector by one means or another so we are not going be provided with reassurances or justification.

My Wife and I get enormous comfort from this forum knowing that there are hundreds of participants sharing the same concerns and perhaps further thousands lurking (or in denial). Therefore I am willing to wade through the wailing and gnashing of teeth to find the sensible posts from DR, TSBT, and other leading players that help to keep me sane.

Couldn't have put it better myself ...