BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I'm a long time Lurker and can only thank all of you for the wealth of information and advice given on this forum. I've completed all the petitions and letters to MPs and will continue to do so.

I'm now considering paying some money to HMRC in the way that stops interest accruing but means I can get the money back if we win. I don't know if I'll be able to raise the whole amount and it would be a real struggle, but if a deal is struck in the future would this count against me, proving that I could pay the whole amount?

Thanks.

Hi, I presume you are referring to a Certificate of Tax Deposit.

I can't see why having a CTD would prejudice your position.

If you do take out a CTD, only pay in an amount to cover the tax+nic, not the already accrued interest. HMRC only charge simple interest (not compound) so there is no benefit in paying in more than the tax+nic.

[Shropshire Lad]

Hi, I presume you are referring to a Certificate of Tax Deposit.

I can't see why having a CTD would prejudice your position.

If you do take out a CTD, only pay in an amount to cover the tax+nic, not the already accrued interest. HMRC only charge simple interest (not compound) so there is no benefit in paying in more than the tax+nic.

Thanks DR. I didn't want to kill myself to put the whole amount in, a deal is struck, and then for some reason I don't get the difference back!!

I remain confident, despite my sister in law's new boyfriend (Tax Barrister!!) saying Tax is the only place where retrospection is fair game if in the national interest. It just makes me very sad that an element of our government want to inflict such pain on people rather than just closing what they saw as a loophole.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Thanks DR. I didn't want to kill myself to put the whole amount in, a deal is struck, and then for some reason I don't get the difference back!!

Paying into a CTD is not like paying on account. The money in a CTD still belongs to you and you can withdraw it at any time (although you lose all the benefit of having had it).

Branningan has never once mentioned CTDs in his letters. Funny that.

[ir35amnesia]

Montpelier Letter

Received my letter from Monpellier.

Mine seems to read......We have done all we can; lets hope the steed/kpmg can do something; then we can ride there coattails.

With a Montpellier hat on - why would they help us negotiate a deal or support us any further since the fee's we owe them are based on the scheme having been effective (which it clearly hasn't).

As a matter of interest who sent the letter. The reason i ask is that Montpelier Tax Planning (Isle of Man) Ltd has been in liquidation since September 2011. It owes creditors circa £7 million.
This company owns the rights to success fees (that depend on successful outcome of litigation) of circa £2 million.

[Disgusted of Coventry]

Why is it retrospective to 01/12/2011?

Not suprisingly, the story seems garbled, but Emigre is right,
The retrospection only goes back to Decemeber 2011.

Consultation on draft legislation for Finance Bill 2012 - HM Treasury
HM Revenue & Customs: Tax avoidance schemes closed

Can anyone figure out why they chose December 1st 2011?

"The legislation also makes retrospective provision for particular arrangements entered into between 1 December 2011 and 27 February 2012, where a company becomes party to a loan relationship as creditor and then becomes connected to the debtor. In such a case, section 361 would not normally apply because the creditor company was not connected to the debtor company at the time it acquired the debt. The retrospective provision treats section 361 as applying."

Does it mean...

a) The scheme was 'invented' on that date, or..
b) This was the date that Barclay's brought it to HMRC's attention, and those that made prior use of this device are NOT penalised.

[BarneyCool]

Really!

As a matter of interest who sent the letter. The reason i ask is that Montpelier Tax Planning (Isle of Man) Ltd has been in liquidation since September 2011. It owes creditors circa £7 million.
This company owns the rights to success fees (that depend on successful outcome of litigation) of circa £2 million.

How do you know this? Where did this info com from?

[Mister Clark]

How do you know this? Where did this info com from?

I don’t post here as not affected but do lurk - I'm replying to your question as I can see why you would be alarmed.

Have a quick search - I'm 99% sure DR has addressed this some months ago and there was nothing untoward. I'm sure it was covered in this thread and an additional thread exists in either the accounting or business forums - don’t panic.

[ir35amnesia]

Montpelier Tax Planning (Isle of Man ) Ltd in liquidation

How do you know this? Where did this info com from?

I am a creditor and the figures quoted come from information presented by the Liquidator.
NB - this may not have anything to do with the future funding of BN66.

[Emigre]

Can anyone figure out why they chose December 1st 2011?

"The legislation also makes retrospective provision for particular arrangements entered into between 1 December 2011 and 27 February 2012, where a company becomes party to a loan relationship as creditor and then becomes connected to the debtor. In such a case, section 361 would not normally apply because the creditor company was not connected to the debtor company at the time it acquired the debt. The retrospective provision treats section 361 as applying."

Does it mean...

a) The scheme was 'invented' on that date, or..
b) This was the date that Barclay's brought it to HMRC's attention, and those that made prior use of this device are NOT penalised.

I believe that Barclays disclosed the scheme under DOTAS rules. I think it probably gave HMRC a good indicator of a date to go for. Disclosures have to made within days of schemes first being used or marketed.

If they used the scheme prior to that timeframe they would be liable to severe penalties.

[nevergiveup]

I am a creditor and the figures quoted come from information presented by the Liquidator.
NB - this may not have anything to do with the future funding of BN66.

Discussion from last year about this: http://http://forums.contractoruk.co...limited-2.html