BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[DaveB]

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'm not involved in this personally but have been following events out of interest. I don't mean to make light of the situation, but this one did make me chuckle.

It was William the Conquerer, who led the Norman invasion, from Normandy.

[screwthis]

Assuming the appeal is allowed and we have time on our side, investing in gold or a high yielding currency isn't a bad idea.

I would personally prefer the Australian $ against gold for the following reason...

Gong short GBPAUD will get you "positive carry" as Australia's interest rate is 4.75% and the UK only 0.5%.
So potentially you could be paid 4.25% (minus brokerage fees) for holding the trade.

At the same time you could hope that the UK's economy is run into the ground by our inept politicians and HMRC driving business away from this country. That would help the pound sink against the aussie dollar

Trading Fiat currencies is completely unpredictable.
ATM they are all in the toilet. The only safe haven currency is gold as it's the only currency that can't be inflated (printed).

The upcoming defaults, debt ceiling raises, hyperinflation etc. will deflate fiat currencies.
AUD may well be as the saying goes "the best seat on the Titanic" but any currency pair is a very risky trade.
If you do go down that route consider buying Aussie bonds.

I am personally looking at Gold ETFs (SPDR) plus real return funds like Newton Real Return (avg. 8% a year with lower volitily than most funds).

Newton Real Return | Newton & BNY Mellon Asset Mgmt | Fund factsheets | FE Trustnet

[Emigre]

Can anyone help me to understand an aspect of the judgement relating to Mr Huitson's employment status?

Paragraph 11 explains that Mr Huitson was self-employed. However, it also states that he would have been caught by IR35, and could not have obtained any tax advantage by supplying his services through an intermediary company.

Eh?

The opposite is normally true. If the activity passes self-employment tests, it is outside IR35's scope. If not, you are an employee for this activity, and you are caught by IR35.

What gives?

I've just read Para 11 again. This is how I read it.

Yes, Huitson was self-employed within the ambit of the MontP arrangements. If Huitson had not used the MontP arrangements (or perhaps as he was prior to signing up) he would almost certainly have operated through his own Ltd Co which would have been caught by IR35. In other words, it wasn't the case that he was self-employed anyway and being told he was caught by IR35.

[SantaClaus]

I've just read Para 11 again. This is how I read it.

Yes, Huitson was self-employed within the ambit of the MontP arrangements. If Huitson had not used the MontP arrangements (or perhaps as he was prior to signing up) he would almost certainly have operated through his own Ltd Co which would have been caught by IR35. In other words, it wasn't the case that he was self-employed anyway and being told he was caught by IR35.

Sounds like the Judges were prepared to accept almost anything against us. I wonder if corruption reigns in the Supreme Court too?

[screwthis]

Sounds like the Judges were prepared to accept almost anything against us. I wonder if corruption reigns in the Supreme Court too?

I recall someone saying (may have been DR but correct me if I'm wrong) that he didn't expect an impartial consideration of our case until we got to Europe.

[swede]

I recall someone saying (may have been DR but correct me if I'm wrong) that he didn't expect an impartial consideration of our case until we got to Europe.

Where do we go after Europe? Presume NATO, or the UN?

[screwthis]

Where do we go after Europe? Presume NATO, or the UN?

We go to that court with all the white crystals and ask Superman's mother to take away HMRC's powers.

[johnnyguitar]

Don't rock the boat

I recall someone saying (may have been DR but correct me if I'm wrong) that he didn't expect an impartial consideration of our case until we got to Europe.

It's got to be easier for them to agree with HMRC. They're not private investigators so they can just take HMRC distorted version of the truth and treat them as facts. No-one will ever blame them for trusting the government.
Much harder and far more contentious to try to disagree with government and over-turn an existing law.
I would like to know what happens at the SC - do we just re-preset our case in the same way, on the same arguments? it seems to me that the only chance we have is if we can pick a large hole in one of the existing judgements and come up with an argument that undermines their reasoning.

Otherwise, we're just putting forward same questions and asking the SC to go against 4 previous judges and the government - I can't see that happening.

I appreciate people wanting to remain positive and look forward to the next round and I would like to join that group, but I would like at least some reasoning as to why we think the SC will be any different.
Just a statement from MontP to say they are 'dissapointed' doesn't give me much hope I'm afraid.

[MMSguru]

Not sure what your potential liability is?

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.

Probably a question for MP, but I have a discrepancy between what the HMRC gateway is telling me and what the 'Liability Interest Calculator' Excel spreadsheet received from MP is telling me. Can anybody advise which to treat as definitive - the HMRC portal or the MP spreasheet? There's about a 100k difference.

[Cantthinkof1]

Very Good Points ....

It's got to be easier for them to agree with HMRC. They're not private investigators so they can just take HMRC distorted version of the truth and treat them as facts. No-one will ever blame them for trusting the government.
Much harder and far more contentious to try to disagree with government and over-turn an existing law.
I would like to know what happens at the SC - do we just re-preset our case in the same way, on the same arguments? it seems to me that the only chance we have is if we can pick a large hole in one of the existing judgements and come up with an argument that undermines their reasoning.

Otherwise, we're just putting forward same questions and asking the SC to go against 4 previous judges and the government - I can't see that happening.

I appreciate people wanting to remain positive and look forward to the next round and I would like to join that group, but I would like at least some reasoning as to why we think the SC will be any different.
Just a statement from MontP to say they are 'dissapointed' doesn't give me much hope I'm afraid.

Jonnyguitar, totally agree with you... It does appear that the arguments being put forward by our legal representatives are just not cutting it with the Judges. You raise an EXTREMELY valid point when you say "Why will the SC be any different". Yes, granted they hold more clout, that is a given, but what is slightly worrying is the fact that no judgements that have been handed down so far , appear to give us any glimmer of hope...