BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[bananarepublic]

They are treating us as PAYE.
Self employed would mean not being caught by IR35.

We are not being taxed on the basis of PAYE. I haven't seen HMRC state we were caught by IR35. I believe that HMRC have simply ignored the trust and have taxed us as if we were members of the partnership directly so are being taxed on that basis.

[nick4notax]

HMRC hear too much here

I am starting to wonder if we've got the right brief.

Is he ramming the point home hard enough because the courts don't seem to be getting it.

The plain and simple fact is that the Padmore legislation was specifically drafted not to do what BN66 does ie. tax anyone.

I wonder that too. It would be nice to have a meeting with Montpelier one evening for us to clarify these kind of points, out of Hector's earshot.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

To be honest I have not been following this thread too closely. However, I am shocked by the naivety of some people. It seems as if some people always believe what they are told (or think they were told)! Whether it is some comment about not expecting to be investigated or being told not to buy a CTD or whatever.

The simple fact is that you signed your earnings over to an offshore company in the hope of getting a tax advantage. What were you expecting?

Whatever Montpeliers faults they did not run for the hills at the first sign of trouble. I believe that they have always operated on the basis of QC advice and in good faith. I don't believe that anybody could reasonably have anticipated the retrospection. I believe that Montpelier were always open and honest to the fact that the scheme may fail.

In so far as there is hope our best bet is sticking it out with Montpelier.

Well said.

Sadly it will fall on a lot of deaf ears.

[screwthis]

We are not being taxed on the basis of PAYE. I haven't seen HMRC state we were caught by IR35. I believe that HMRC have simply ignored the trust and have taxed us as if we were members of the partnership directly so are being taxed on that basis.

Point taken.

Either way it amounts to the same thing i.e. employer's and employee's NI.

Has the possibility of attempting to submit as self employed been explored or is there a specific reason this won't work? I guess it's too late to claim we would have otherwise used a ltd company as we have gone down the trust route and there is no company for those years..

[nevergiveup]

Can you be our QC at the SC?

Agree.... Ask the right questions!

TSBT + DR I recon.

[reckless]

Lighter Note

I am starting to wonder if we've got the right brief.

Is he ramming the point home hard enough because the courts don't seem to be getting it.

The plain and simple fact is that the Padmore legislation was specifically drafted not to do what BN66 does ie. tax anyone.

On a lighter note, but also following on from DR's question;
the other day I was explaining the situation to my teenage son, summarising the basics about how under this scheme we disclosed all our dealings anaually in our self-assessments, the IR did nothing for 7 years, how the IR knowing that we could not be successfully challenged under the existing law persuaded the government to change the law backwards and are now trying to reclaim the money for these 7 years (plus interest) and in the process bankrupt people. His reply made me laugh for the first time since Monday:

'Gee Dad, your lawyer must be really $hite!'

[normalbloke]

We are not being taxed on the basis of PAYE. I haven't seen HMRC state we were caught by IR35. I believe that HMRC have simply ignored the trust and have taxed us as if we were members of the partnership directly so are being taxed on that basis.

I agree. Definitely NOT being taxed as inside IR35. I was a self-employed IT consultant on MP's contract at the time. I believe in the past there was an idea bandied around by one of AJ cronies that if we DID fall under IR35 and declare ourselves such (despite the MP contractual terms), then we wouldn't be liable for the tax - the 'intermediary' would.. whoever in law that would have been, given that we didn't operate through a Ltd. Don't go there.

[GBHuhd]

how is this possible ?

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.

I have to say DR, having never read that pdf before, i am quite frankly astonished that HMRC have been allowed to get away with this. So, as well as knowing about it far earlier than they said they did.. they also basically knew how the scheme worked and why they couldn't beat it (that is of course without claryifying a law that already existed - let's leave aside the rather obvious question as to why if a law worked it needed clarification to make it work).

Am i being thick here, but why has this not been bought up in court, or was it ? If it was and it was dismissed then god help us....by the way, anyone have idea what's happening with the case that went straight to Europe ?

[TAF4]

........ why has this not been bought up in court, or was it ? If it was and it was dismissed then god help us.

This lovely little item was brought up on the first day of the JR and Parker really seemed to get the point. It may well be one of the 'gotcha's' that gets a more sensible scrutiny at the SC.

By the next day however Parker had turned 180 and swallowed all the 'Fairness' arguments that Hector's brief was spouting.

[Morlock]

PAYE?

Point taken.

Either way it amounts to the same thing i.e. employer's and employee's NI.

Has the possibility of attempting to submit as self employed been explored or is there a specific reason this won't work? I guess it's too late to claim we would have otherwise used a ltd company as we have gone down the trust route and there is no company for those years..

None of my back-tax notices make any mention of National Insurance. Just income tax.