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

[tendo71]

have u even bothered reading my post earlier about compensation? You WONT NEED A CTD, they become irrelevant!!! FFS guys read the bloody posts eh!!! you can lead a horse to water.......

I am assuming you are joking. Compensation for what? Because it didn't work?

It' a lovely thought and one that will help me sleep tonight.......but its a pipe dream surely.

Would be a pleasure to be proven wrong.

[bananarepublic]

have u even bothered reading my post earlier about compensation? You WONT NEED A CTD, they become irrelevant!!! FFS guys read the bloody posts eh!!! you can lead a horse to water.......

Sorry I am too busy watching the pigs fly outside.

[smalldog]

I am assuming you are joking. Compensation for what? Because it didn't work?

It' a lovely thought and one that will help me sleep tonight.......but its a pipe dream surely.

Would be a pleasure to be proven wrong.

YES!!!! Read the article, this could be ground breaking so please stop flooding the forum with APN and CTD discussions or this will be lost in the quogmire as its pretty critical.

IF the scheme promoter did NOT MAKE YOU FULLY AWARE OF THE RISKS THEN YOU CAN CLAIM AGAINST THEM!!!!!!!!

HSBC, UBS, COUTTS PLUS a whole plethora of scheme promoters are on dodgy ground apparently. Now there is no reason at all why MP would be out of scope.

And as I have to say again, has ANYONE ASKED MP IF THEY WOULD PAY THE APN's!!!! I certainly didnt even think to ask.

[bananarepublic]

YES!!!! Read the article, this could be ground breaking so please stop flooding the forum with APN and CTD discussions or this will be lost in the quogmire as its pretty critical.

IF the scheme promoter did NOT MAKE YOU FULLY AWARE OF THE RISKS THEN YOU CAN CLAIM AGAINST THEM!!!!!!!!

HSBC, UBS, COUTTS PLUS a whole plethora of scheme promoters are on dodgy ground apparently. Now there is no reason at all why MP would be out of scope.

And as I have to say again, has ANYONE ASKED MP IF THEY WOULD PAY THE APN's!!!! I certainly didnt even think to ask.

Sorry but given that we are on the cusp of getting APNs I would rather talk about them than some flight of fancy about getting compensation - which would take years.

How on earth are Montpelier to pay the APNs? We are talking tens of millions. You are also talking about a web of companies. Good luck finding one to pin it on. Even if you found one they would just go insolvent. Also say goodbye to representation at the FTTT and onwards.

And exactly what risks are you talking about? Montpelier were up front about the risk of ending up paying the tax. Also, nobody could foresee s58 or APN legislation.

Rather than spamming this thread why don't you set another one up?

[smalldog]

Sorry but given that we are on the cusp of getting APNs I would rather talk about them than some flight of fancy about getting compensation.

How on earth are Montpelier to pay the APNs? We are talking tens of millions. You are also talking about a web of companies. Good luck finding one to pin it on. Even if you found one they would just go insolvent. Also say goodbye to representation at the FTTT and onwards.

And exactly what risks are you talking about? Montpelier were up front about the risk of ending up paying the tax. Also, nobody could foresee s58 or APN legislation.

ok so ST are wrong and u are right then? Im gonna take my chances with ST advice and start asking MP then the FOS, then FSCS if the tulip hits the fan. few letters for a possible £50k compensation is probably worth the ink.

I agree MP will probably be untraceable, but the banks have already started to defend themselves saying all disclosed, no different to the banks initial stance on PPI apparently, but look what that cost them and thats the parallel being drawn by the ST. The hard stop seems to be a possible £50k from the FOS, personally I think that worth pursuing.

The worm is turning, the ST is saying we were mis-sold, these are no longer tax avoiding scum articles, more leaning towards dodgy banks and scheme providers. We need to capitalise on this and fast IMHO.

[SantaClaus]

dont know how many of you read the sunday times but talk of a massive mis-selling compensation of £12bn along the lines of PPI which was £15bn. Providers such as Coutts (!), UBS, HSBC plus other promoters.

With individuals entitled to claim compensation from scheme promoters of all HMRC tax relief, fees plus costs, and if the scheme provider has disappeared, then the financial ombudsman service will compensate upto £50k!

so....if you can get your hands on a copy of the ST, I recommend it! splashed all over front page of money section and carries onto page 2. Its also in the main edition too, the article talks about modest investors caught in tax intended to catch the rich..

I don't think we should dismiss this completely yet. I've flagged the idea to the SG.

[bananarepublic]

ok so ST are wrong and u are right then? Im gonna take my chances with ST advice and start asking MP then the FOS, then FSCS if the tulip hits the fan. few letters for a possible £50k compensation is probably worth the ink.

I agree MP will probably be untraceable, but the banks have already started to defend themselves saying all disclosed, no different to PPI apparently, but look what that cost them and thats the parallel being drawn by the ST. The hard stop seems to be a possible £50k from the FOS, personally I think that worth pursuing.

I have not read the article so I don't know. What I think is highly likely is that even if there is some compensation available it would only be paid well after you have had to pay the APN. In fact if this is a route you want to try we might as well settle now as there won't be anyone to defend us.

[bananarepublic]

Financial Ombudsman

Check out the time limits.

https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.u...s-affected-you

A google search brings back quite a lot of information. There have already been successful compensation claims.

One of the issues with film partnerships is that in many cases the tax bill is larger than the original investment. So different to our case. Which is that we will have to pay tax that but for the scheme we would have paid anyway.

[lucozade]

Check out the time limits.

https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.u...s-affected-you

A google search brings back quite a lot of information. There have already been successful compensation claims.

One of the issues with film partnerships is that in many cases the tax bill is larger than the original investment. So different to our case. Which is that we will have to pay tax that but for the scheme we would have paid anyway.

My MP (member of parliament) initially suggested this to me in my very first meeting with him a long time ago.

However, I put it to him, how indeed could I take a scheme to task on selling me a perfectly legal scheme that was made illegal using retrospection. I can't get my head around this. They would simply argue that there is no way they could predict the government changing the law backwards in time so could never have advised us anything other than it's legal.

This makes yet another mockery of retrospection.

Scheme providers could advise this NOW because it has happened but in 2008 they certainly didn't have any expectation this would happen.

[bananarepublic]

My MP (member of parliament) initially suggested this to me in my very first meeting with him a long time ago.

However, I put it to him, how indeed could I take a scheme to task on selling me a perfectly legal scheme that was made illegal using retrospection. I can't get my head around this. They would simply argue that there is no way they could predict the government changing the law backwards in time so could never have advised us anything other than it's legal.

This makes yet another mockery of retrospection.

Scheme providers could advise this NOW because it has happened but in 2008 they certainly didn't have any expectation this would happen.

There are a few things that we could take Montpelier to task on

1. They said retrospection was unlikely. Given that there was retrospection in 1988 perhaps this was a bit too reassuring
2. They told me that only a few hundred people would be recruited on the scheme
3. They should have sought closure notices earlier
4. HMRC loaded extra NI onto the bill

However the risk of investigation was laid out and I repeat that we are only going to pay tax on money we would have anyway but for the presence of the scheme. They have also kept up their side of the bargain on representing us. I just don't see they have a case to answer.