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

[Crusoe101]

Received my pay up Letter

Have an amount outstanding for around 10K for 6 months used in the 2008/2009 tax year. I dont know how they calculated that as that seems over the top.

Really dont know what to do now. If to inquire and see what the amount or the payment schedule is or to just hold out.

Im not very informed in this subject.

[zippo]

Have an amount outstanding for around 10K for 6 months used in the 2008/2009 tax year. I dont know how they calculated that as that seems over the top.

Really dont know what to do now. If to inquire and see what the amount or the payment schedule is or to just hold out.

Im not very informed in this subject.

Were you with Montp ?

[Crusoe101]

Were you with Montp ?

Nope Sanzar. No idea how the scheme worked and I stoppped just before they sent a letter out about closing the scheme and changing to EBT as that seemed to risky. All comms from HRC refer to Loans which I have never had.

[petergw]

Donation sent ....

Donation sent tonight...

[samson]

Hello all, this is a message to all members and lurkers that have permanently left the UK and moved abroad. If you wanted to swap notes on how to handle this situation then inbox me privately.

[honeyridges]

But that compensation would depend on you showing the FSCS that you joined the scheme based on mis-selling by an FSCS regulated company....

Sadly while I think you were mis-sold the scheme I don't think you were mis-sold the scheme by an FSCS regulated company.

I agree it's unlikely MontP are/were FSCS-regulated, so doubtful there's any mileage in a claim against the FSCS. But I also take issue with the notion that we were mis-sold anything - for I believe the scheme very likely did work when it was sold. I think the problem is simply that Mr Gittins & Co were just too clever for HMRC/Treasury bods and came up with a scheme that took the p1ss, was clearly abusive of the DTT but would in all likelihood succeed if challenged in court. That pushed the establishment into a corner and the rest is history.

If the scheme were flawed when first sold, why did HMRC not just take cases to court as they originally stated they would? The whole BN66 nonsense of retrospective 'clarification' (and that still makes me laugh: we're not changing the law, simply 'clarifying' it) was a crude (but apparently successful) attempt to fix an ambiguity in law which was being exploited - and which would likely be upheld if challenged in court, with all the embarrassment that would bring.

I understand the pressure our current situation brings to bear - I'm feeling it myself - made worse when applied over years as is the case here. But I think all this talk of compensation is something of a reflection of the times where someone else is always to blame for everything that happens to you. If you walk into a wall you can sue the bloke who built it - rather than accept you should maybe watch where you're going.

I'm still not clear on the real motivation for the persecution users of our particular scheme have suffered through BN66 (as compared to users of the plethora of other schemes who seem only to have been forced to stop using them because they were made ineffective prospectively). We do seem to have been singled out for particularly harsh treatment in that regard. But I'm also clear who is to blame for that - and it's not MontP. It's senior HMRC officials, Treasury civil servants, weak Government ministers and to a lesser degree ordinary MPs who have been led by the nose when the one thing we ask is that they properly scrutinise bills before passing them into law.

Turning on MontP to me does not feel like the right thing to do - and the one thing we still have on our side is the knowledge that despite everything, we know we did nothing wrong. It was they who moved the goalposts after full-time and then recalculated the score.

[smalldog]

donation made..

[BrilloPad]

I agree it's unlikely MontP are/were FSCS-regulated, so doubtful there's any mileage in a claim against the FSCS. But I also take issue with the notion that we were mis-sold anything - for I believe the scheme very likely did work when it was sold. I think the problem is simply that Mr Gittins & Co were just too clever for HMRC/Treasury bods and came up with a scheme that took the p1ss, was clearly abusive of the DTT but would in all likelihood succeed if challenged in court. That pushed the establishment into a corner and the rest is history.

If the scheme were flawed when first sold, why did HMRC not just take cases to court as they originally stated they would? The whole BN66 nonsense of retrospective 'clarification' (and that still makes me laugh: we're not changing the law, simply 'clarifying' it) was a crude (but apparently successful) attempt to fix an ambiguity in law which was being exploited - and which would likely be upheld if challenged in court, with all the embarrassment that would bring.

I understand the pressure our current situation brings to bear - I'm feeling it myself - made worse when applied over years as is the case here. But I think all this talk of compensation is something of a reflection of the times where someone else is always to blame for everything that happens to you. If you walk into a wall you can sue the bloke who built it - rather than accept you should maybe watch where you're going.

I'm still not clear on the real motivation for the persecution users of our particular scheme have suffered through BN66 (as compared to users of the plethora of other schemes who seem only to have been forced to stop using them because they were made ineffective prospectively). We do seem to have been singled out for particularly harsh treatment in that regard. But I'm also clear who is to blame for that - and it's not MontP. It's senior HMRC officials, Treasury civil servants, weak Government ministers and to a lesser degree ordinary MPs who have been led by the nose when the one thing we ask is that they properly scrutinise bills before passing them into law.

Turning on MontP to me does not feel like the right thing to do - and the one thing we still have on our side is the knowledge that despite everything, we know we did nothing wrong. It was they who moved the goalposts after full-time and then recalculated the score.

Why are you bringing logic and fairness into this? Totally pointless. No-one else involved is.

Any strategy that will get us out of this must be welcomed.

Not that there is any. We are totally stuffed.

HTH BISDI

[screwthis]

I agree it's unlikely MontP are/were FSCS-regulated, so doubtful there's any mileage in a claim against the FSCS. But I also take issue with the notion that we were mis-sold anything - for I believe the scheme very likely did work when it was sold. I think the problem is simply that Mr Gittins & Co were just too clever for HMRC/Treasury bods and came up with a scheme that took the p1ss, was clearly abusive of the DTT but would in all likelihood succeed if challenged in court. That pushed the establishment into a corner and the rest is history.

If the scheme were flawed when first sold, why did HMRC not just take cases to court as they originally stated they would? The whole BN66 nonsense of retrospective 'clarification' (and that still makes me laugh: we're not changing the law, simply 'clarifying' it) was a crude (but apparently successful) attempt to fix an ambiguity in law which was being exploited - and which would likely be upheld if challenged in court, with all the embarrassment that would bring.

I understand the pressure our current situation brings to bear - I'm feeling it myself - made worse when applied over years as is the case here. But I think all this talk of compensation is something of a reflection of the times where someone else is always to blame for everything that happens to you. If you walk into a wall you can sue the bloke who built it - rather than accept you should maybe watch where you're going.

I'm still not clear on the real motivation for the persecution users of our particular scheme have suffered through BN66 (as compared to users of the plethora of other schemes who seem only to have been forced to stop using them because they were made ineffective prospectively). We do seem to have been singled out for particularly harsh treatment in that regard. But I'm also clear who is to blame for that - and it's not MontP. It's senior HMRC officials, Treasury civil servants, weak Government ministers and to a lesser degree ordinary MPs who have been led by the nose when the one thing we ask is that they properly scrutinise bills before passing them into law.

Turning on MontP to me does not feel like the right thing to do - and the one thing we still have on our side is the knowledge that despite everything, we know we did nothing wrong. It was they who moved the goalposts after full-time and then recalculated the score.

+1 to everything said. Very well put

[BrilloPad]

+1 to everything said. Very well put

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...ml#post1973495

HTH BISDI