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

[SantaClaus]

Maybe people still have their heads in sand and need to be brought out to sign - i.e. be informed.

You'll probably get thousands of signatures when the brown envelopes start landing on doormats.

[cojak]

Probably the same troll that always shows up when we go outside of the forum. A particularly sad individual, who must really want someone to pay him some attention. And yes, I am also sure it is someone who turns up here. Don't engage, that's how he gets his kicks when he's not having a

I would advise that you don't assume anything of the sort.

But I agree about not engaging.

[SantaClaus]

None of my returns were signed off. HMRC opened enquiries into all of them within 12 months.

This was brought up in court as justification of the retro element that we should have always expected to pay the tax.

What annoys me off is they waited 7 years before taking any action and then never challenged on legal grounds.

I would be interested to know if we could legally challenge the interest accumulation until at least 2006 (when GB warned schemes would be closed with retrospective effect satin back to 2006)

Don't forget HMRC asked us to wait for the outcome of the 4 test cases which they failed to bring to tribunal.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Don't forget HMRC asked us to wait for the outcome of the 4 test cases which they failed to bring to tribunal.

Yes and Judge Parker said we shouldn't have let sleeping dogs lie.

We were waiting for the outcome of the test case, as requested by HMRC, not letting sleeping dogs lie!!!

[smalldog]

here we go:

Opening up the legal floodgates - FTAdviser.com

Lawyers attack 'unfair' plans on tax avoidance rulings | News | Money Marketing

[bananarepublic]

I am aware the monpelier have contributed nothing to the ntrt fighting fund.

I am starting to feel let down by them. I the past I did feel supported by them - but I feel now they could do more.

I do have some background information on this I am not prepared to share publicly - I will only share with those who attend.

I intend to organize a demonstration at the montpelier office in the IoM. It will be totally peaceful - the aim is to generate publicity and to shame montpelier into making a contribution.

Please PM me with your email if there is any interest.

BP

It would be totally counter productive for Montpelier to contribute to NTRT. It would be very effective propaganda for the government. NTRT should remain, in my view funded by individuals affected by S58.

Lets not forget that the vast majority of scheme promoters seem to have disappeared and won't be representing their users, who will likely have to pay up without any plausible chance of winning their appeal even if their scheme was sound. Unless they can afford representation at FTT, High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. HMRC have no particular incentive not to appeal if they lose at the FTT - where previously they might not have bothered.

Kudos to Montpelier for sticking with it. There is still legs to our appeal. I don't know how significant it is but it sounds like there is a technical error in the S58 legislation....

[DotasScandal]

here we go:

Opening up the legal floodgates - FTAdviser.com

Lawyers attack 'unfair' plans on tax avoidance rulings | News | Money Marketing

Ah! I was about to comment on the second link (on the site). But I see our resident "settlement facilitator" Matthew J Perry beat me to it.

[OnYourBikeGB]

It would be totally counter productive for Montpelier to contribute to NTRT. It would be very effective propaganda for the government. NTRT should remain, in my view funded by individuals affected by S58.

Lets not forget that the vast majority of scheme promoters seem to have disappeared and won't be representing their users, who will likely have to pay up without any plausible chance of winning their appeal even if their scheme was sound. Unless they can afford representation at FTT, High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. HMRC have no particular incentive not to appeal if they lose at the FTT - where previously they might not have bothered.

Kudos to Montpelier for sticking with it. There is still legs to our appeal. I don't know how significant it is but it sounds like there is a technical error in the S58 legislation....

whs

Reading some of the threads over on the EBT thread have made me think we have a lot to be thankful Montp. I don't care what their motivation is along as they stick to their guns.

[BrilloPad]

whs

Reading some of the threads over on the EBT thread have made me think we have a lot to be thankful Montp. I don't care what their motivation is along as they stick to their guns.

Lets see where we are in 3 months time...

[jbryce]

whs

Reading some of the threads over on the EBT thread have made me think we have a lot to be thankful Montp. I don't care what their motivation is along as they stick to their guns.

you do.
For example: Scheme A has 'dissapeard' although they resurfaced as another scheme, which itself has since been reincarnated as another scheme. It's worth noting that, whilst these schemes were not regulated, if they were managed incorrectly or negligently then users may have recourse to the courts to claim damages. That is if you can find them of course.