No To Retro Tax – Campaign Against Section 58 Finance Act 2008

[bananarepublic]

Its worse ....

I DONT USUALLY SAY MUCH BUT I AM GETTING TOTALLY HACKED OFF WITH HEARING HMRC MADE IT CLEAR THE SCHEME DIDNT WORK!, THEY DID NOT SUCH THING!!!!!! IS ANYONE PUSHING BACK ON THIS INCLUDING OUR LOBBYING COMPANY?



thanks, normal service resumes....

I was looking through my correspondence with HMRC yesterday. It took them from Dec 2003 when I was first under investigation to May 2004 to say they were "likely" to challenge and that they knew the structure of the scheme (presumably this is when they worked out that I was using the Montpelier scheme, not when they figured out how it worked). It was then Feb 2006 before they said they would definitely challenge and the grounds were some spurious reason based on Section 739. This was the part that Montpelier had put a lot of thought into defeating if my memory holds from the seminar in 2001.

However, in their submission to the courts they claimed that they had "always" told us that Section 112 was the basis of the challenge (as well as 739). This is crucial because this is the section that was changed after Padmore and was the real "justification" for the retrospection.

Frankly I am staggered that the court could agree with HMRC regarding them having warned us. Looking through my correspondence this is simply untrue. Even where they did give a reason it was not the *same* as the clarification so I can't see that the warning re 739 should be taken as meaning anything at all as it wasn't this part that was "clarified".

The 2004 date is important as well. In the PBR of that year they closed a lot of schemes used by contractors - and warned others they would backdate tax to the date of the PBR. This is why I believe the take up of the Montpelier scheme - and others - ballooned. If they knew all about the scheme in 2004, they knew people used it and they had not worked out how to challenge it then WHY didn't they close the scheme then?

My MP doesn't seem particularly keen to help and it sounds like he has some young intern to fob me off. I will keep plugging away though and I think I am going to go and see him and generally make myself as annoying as possible until he does something....

[bananarepublic]

It was then Feb 2006 before they said they would definitely challenge and the grounds were some spurious reason based on Section 739. This was the part that Montpelier expected them to challenge on, if my memory holds from the seminar in 2001.

Just to say that I got a letter October 2005 where they still said they were likely to challenge. Therefore, we can fix the end of 2005 - start 2006 where they came up with their initial argument regarding a challenge - one that was rebutted very strongly by Montpelier at the time.

But again, I think this is irrelevent to their contention as having warned us as their 2006 argument was not subject to the clarification.

[Emigre]

The 2004 date is important as well. In the PBR of that year they closed a lot of schemes used by contractors - and warned others they would backdate tax to the date of the PBR. This is why I believe the take up of the Montpelier scheme - and others - ballooned. If they knew all about the scheme in 2004, they knew people used it and they had not worked out how to challenge it then WHY didn't they close the scheme then?

I think what you are referring to here is the Dawn Primarolo statement in December 2004 when she was PMG. Her statement referred exclusively to PAYE schemes, and not to self-employed or PSC/IR35 arrangements. In other words it has no bearing on our timelines.

[Morlock]

A couple of misc. points

1) I never received a letter of any kind saying that the scheme didn't work. First I knew was a letter saying "as you are aware you have been under investigation for tax year xxxx [a year I wasn't in the scheme!], and now we are extending that investigation to cover yyyy [my first year in the scheme!]". Clearly a cut and paste job.

2) I have been fobbed off at the high port regarding my Data Protection Act Request, with a reply to the effect that "we can't give you anything other than copies of letters that we've already sent you, because it would prejudice the collection of tax. Since you've already got the letters that we've already sent you, please find enclosed nothing" [or words to that effect]. (This was actually my third attempt; on the first attempt I had no reply, and on the 2nd attempt they actually asked me where I thought the requested information would be held!!) I am thinking of going directly to the Information Commissioner at this stage with a full-on complaint. Advice anyone...?

[moira under the stairs]

1) I never received a letter of any kind saying that the scheme didn't work. First I knew was a letter saying "as you are aware you have been under investigation for tax year xxxx [a year I wasn't in the scheme!], and now we are extending that investigation to cover yyyy [my first year in the scheme!]". Clearly a cut and paste job.

2) I have been fobbed off at the high port regarding my Data Protection Act Request, with a reply to the effect that "we can't give you anything other than copies of letters that we've already sent you, because it would prejudice the collection of tax. Since you've already got the letters that we've already sent you, please find enclosed nothing" [or words to that effect]. (This was actually my third attempt; on the first attempt I had no reply, and on the 2nd attempt they actually asked me where I thought the requested information would be held!!) I am thinking of going directly to the Information Commissioner at this stage with a full-on complaint. Advice anyone...?

I was presented with copies of letters that had already been sent to me... they must be held somewhere that was a while back now, maybe Hector has started to feel the heat and see that they are not dealing with the general run of the mill pleb'

[SLB]

I was presented with copies of letters that had already been sent to me... they must be held somewhere that was a while back now, maybe Hector has started to feel the heat and see that they are not dealing with the general run of the mill pleb'

I was also sent copies of the letters that had already been sent to me, so they have them somewhere.

[honeyridges]

Honeyridges is onboard

Greetings to all and best wishes to everyone involved in the campaign.

Special thanks to those who have taken the initiative to organise this.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Greetings to all and best wishes to everyone involved in the campaign.

Special thanks to those who have taken the initiative to organise this.

Thank you to you and all the other members who have donated.

Our numbers are growing by the day.

We are expecting to get a lot more over the next few days. All will become clear tomorrow or Friday.

[Dieselpower]

Question

I was presented with copies of letters that had already been sent to me... they must be held somewhere that was a while back now, maybe Hector has started to feel the heat and see that they are not dealing with the general run of the mill pleb'

When were you handed these letters please? And by whom? And did those letters actually confirm our position that they never told us the scheme didn't work until may 2007?

[St Jude]

First Notification

When were you handed these letters please? And by whom? And di they confirm our position that they never told us the scheme didnt work until may 2007?

At last got up the courage to go through my Montpelier file.

Joined the scheme in April 2003.

Got my first notification that HMRC "does not accept the claims are valid" in May 2007.

"At this point I am writing to you to see if you are prepared to wait and accept the decision od the Special Commissioners/Court to settle your enquiry. And also to ask you to CONSIDER making a payment on account of the additional tax that will be due SHOULD HMRC's view prevail"

What happened to the enquiry?

Next correspondenceis in June 2009 (2 years later). Closure Notices asking for ridiculous sums of money including NI contributions. I was self employed at the time and payed the appropriate amounts of NI for a self employed person.

Beyond belief!