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

[DonkeyRhubarb]

FOS Isle of Man

I think any complaint would have to go through here:
The Financial Services Ombudsman Scheme for the Isle of Man - an explanatory guide - Isle of Man Government Office of Fair Trading

However, it's probably a non-starter because of the time limits.

[OnYourBikeGB]

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.

Is the fact that they never discounted retrospection not enough? It clearly is not illegal for the Government to do what they have done, so we should have been advised there was a risk even though it was remote.

[screwthis]

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.

I agree that asking for compensation for tax we would have had to pay anyway is a bit rich and I also agree they have kept us their end of the bargain... would be nice to get the fees back though

[bananarepublic]

Is the fact that they never discounted retrospection not enough? It clearly is not illegal for the Government to do what they have done, so we should have been advised there was a risk even though it was remote.

They didn't discount it completely - just said retrospection was unlikely. It was probably a reasonable statement to make at the time.

[lucozade]

They didn't discount it completely - just said retrospection was unlikely. It was probably a reasonable statement to make at the time.

Remember the most recent NTRT newsletter suggest a new Judicial Review using Article 6 of the Human Rights Act.

if that's the case then who would be raising this? NTRT or Montpelier. If it's Montpelier then I don't think it's a good idea to pi55 them off right now.

[OnYourBikeGB]

They didn't discount it completely - just said retrospection was unlikely. It was probably a reasonable statement to make at the time.

I thought it was stated during our briefing that tax law cannot be retrospective. Unfortunately I have nothing to prove it one way or the other.

[helen7]

I agree that asking for compensation for tax we would have had to pay anyway is a bit rich and I also agree they have kept us their end of the bargain... would be nice to get the fees back though

Forget about it. The company we paid fee's too are long gone.

[bananarepublic]

I thought it was stated during our briefing that tax law cannot be retrospective. Unfortunately I have nothing to prove it one way or the other.

Am pretty sure I have a handout (now buried in the loft) from one of their presentations (not the one I went to) which said retrospection was unlikely but did not discount it completely. Can't remember what they said at the one I went to - in May 2001!

If I thought I had been misled or ripped off I would be the first person demanding that they be held to account. However, pretty much alone amongst scheme providers Montpelier have continued to represent their clients and hold to their obligations.

Also I remember that when I was in the scheme how it relieved me from the hassle of running a Ltd company. The fee also included this service - it wasn't just tax advice.

[reckless]

I thought it was stated during our briefing that tax law cannot be retrospective. Unfortunately I have nothing to prove it one way or the other.

At the MTM Briefing I went to (2002?) I asked that very question - 'could tax laws be changed backwards?' The answer I got (I think from MTM's legal cousel) was that the last time the law had been changed retrospectively in Britain was at the time of William the Conqueror. Obviously this was not quite technically correct in light of the 1988 Padmore case. They did however state that there was no absolute guarantee that the scheme would work, only that a high level legal review had concluded that it should work.
MTM/Montpelier have been good to their word and more, in honouring all their promises ('will fight any challenge all the way to the High Court'). They have now gone beyond that to Europe, and also over the many years have done a satisfactory job keeping the HMRC off our backs.
I do agree it would be nice to get the fees back, to help reduce the possible bill, but I don't see that there is any compulsion for Montpelier to have to do this, other than out of the goodness of their hearts.

[Rob79]

New to this thread so please excuse me if this has been asked before.

I get the point about "paying tax that would otherwise have been due" does not give you any loss to claim against the promoter.

What happens if HMRC charges interest and perhaps a penalty?