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

[Leyther70]

I understand what you saying and that could well have happened but they made a big point of the low numbers and it was a strong selling point to keep under the radar so they are very guilty of misleading people with that and it does raise a question of trust.

With regards to the other schemes, did these come after Montpelier and did the success of Montpelier lead to these being setup? If they were before then fair enough, if after then it could be argued if the numbers had been kept low the whole scheme would have stayed under the radar, I guess we will never know.

Firstly, Montpelier did not have 3000 users. They had about half that number.

If Montpelier had capped the scheme then people would simply have gone elsewhere ie. deGraaf, Steed, Sanzar

deGraaf alone had 700 users.

[Rob79]

"You could start a seperate thread in accountancy/legal on it - or PM the original poster."

Probably inappropriate for this forum.

"Leyther70


I understand what you saying and that could well have happened but they made a big point of the low numbers and it was a strong selling point to keep under the radar so they are very guilty of misleading people with that and it does raise a question of trust.

With regards to the other schemes, did these come after Montpelier and did the success of Montpelier lead to these being setup? If they were before then fair enough, if after then it could be argued if the numbers had been kept low the whole scheme would have stayed under the radar, I guess we will never know."

Would have made no difference.

a) you cannot copyright or otherwise protect schemes that use public law as a basis and anybody can copy them;
b) the MP scheme was itself a derivation of an earlier scheme and arguably was just adding numbers of users;
c) HMRC will chase anything that threatens the tax base, regardless of volume and there is not such thing as "under the radar";
d) being objective, why would a "selling point" be - "we will only sell so much"? Surely you sell as much as you can?;

If you think that MP have mis-sold the scheme, you need to investigate whether you have a claim on that basis.

[ireland2013]

Rangers again

BBC News - HMRC bids to appeal Rangers tax case

If they are successfully granted an appeal

Will the judges come from the same bench?

[lucozade]

BBC News - HMRC bids to appeal Rangers tax case

If they are successfully granted an appeal

Will the judges come from the same bench?

Wonder if the numbers are accurate or is it more HMRC bull

[Rob79]

BBC News - HMRC bids to appeal Rangers tax case

If they are successfully granted an appeal

Will the judges come from the same bench?

No. This will be an appeal to the Court of Appeal which is staffed by legally trained professional judges rather than the non legally trained part timers at Tribunal.

[lucozade]

No. This will be an appeal to the Court of Appeal which is staffed by legally trained professional judges rather than the non legally trained part timers at Tribunal.

So up until this point the people making the decisions have not been legally trained professionals?

[Rob79]

So up until this point the people making the decisions have not been legally trained professionals?

Correct. The Tribunals are primarily there to establish facts and apply the tax rules, as they understand them, to those facts.

Many Tribunal judges will have had some basic training in legal concepts and some will have some tax background. I'm aware for instance that the Tribunal service is recruiting now and that a number of people who have worked in tax for many years are being sought.

It is not however usual to find lawyers or full time professional judges on a FTT or Upper Tier panel.

As a result some Court of Appeal and Supreme Court decisions tend to go against the earlier results if they feel that certain legal concepts or developing legal policy has not been applied.

That said, the quid pro quo is that where a lower tribunal has found that as a FACT a transfer of funds from one person to another is a LOAN, then a higher judge would be reluctant to overturn that FACT. If they are minded to find against a ruling (and I know that a large number of people here consider that the judiciary is biased and in the pocket of HMRC - something I would disagree with at Court of Appeal and above) then they need to do so on the application of legal concept rather than fact.

As has been discussed here, the Ramsay doctrine and its extension into "purposive interpretation" can allow judges to put aside contracts and operations undertaken solely or mainly to create a tax position and where they have little or no commercial effect.

Equally, where the law creates a legal fictional world and the transaction has been crafted to meet the terms of that world, decisions tend to follow the letter of that fictional world.

This is why some decisions looking at whether a payment is (for example) a loan or remuneration will put weight upon documents and the intention of the parties as facts at the expense of legal doctrine.

Other decisions looking at (usually) very complex financial derivatives, which have their own tax code creating a fictional world, will stick rigidly to the letter of the law because that is what Parliament clearly intended when the rules were created.

On the surface, trying to tax contractors as they are and fighting all the way, whilst allowing big corporations who tend to be involved in transactions that most people never contemplate, to be taxed on narrow applications of the law, looks to be inconsistent.

Unfortunately the law is being applied entirely consistently. Whether the law is "fair" is a much more difficult question and there is not space here for that debate.

[MrX]

MP: Seminar notes

As I understood the MP scheme, originally it was sold as a 6% fee plus a 4% loan from MP which would be repaid if the scheme was successful.
In later years this changed to a 10% fee of which 4% would be refunded if the scheme was unsuccessful.

I joined in the later years and am trying to locate some documentation that shows this arrangement. Did anyone join at the same time as me and have any documentation that shows this arrangement? I'd appreciate it if you could PM me.

Thanks.

[Rob79]

It is the INSIGHT that makes me worried he/she does seem to have considerable knowledge the War and Peace posts are epics

Once again I state if he/she was to become a NTRT member then I am sure he/she could be an asset.

But he/she has declined to become a member which makes me wonder what are his/her aims on this forum, help, hinder or as previously posted by SC he/she is just bored

I have considerable knowledge because I've been "doing tax" for nearly 40 years, yes, including 3 years in the late 1970's with what was then Inland revenue. Most recently I work in a way that puts me in contact with senior HMRC policy and case officers on a weekly basis and we discuss many things.

My aim is to share knowledge because I've seen many people over the years get themselves into serious difficulty on tax issues because they were afraid of asking the right questions.

I am not and never have been a contractor nor ever been self employed. As such I have no direct interest in sec 58 and as such think it inappropriate to join NTRT.

I post here because a) I'm interested and vain enough to think I can add something, b) I have the time and c) some of the issues that come up are relevant in my day job.

That's all for now - just had some bad news and need some time to think about it.

[OneUnited]

I have considerable knowledge because I've been "doing tax" for nearly 40 years, yes, including 3 years in the late 1970's with what was then Inland revenue. Most recently I work in a way that puts me in contact with senior HMRC policy and case officers on a weekly basis and we discuss many things.

My aim is to share knowledge because I've seen many people over the years get themselves into serious difficulty on tax issues because they were afraid of asking the right questions.

I am not and never have been a contractor nor ever been self employed. As such I have no direct interest in sec 58 and as such think it inappropriate to join NTRT.

I post here because a) I'm interested and vain enough to think I can add something, b) I have the time and c) some of the issues that come up are relevant in my day job.

That's all for now - just had some bad news and need some time to think about it.

This is a forum for s58 I am a little suspicious of somebody with your background who has suddenly appeared on this forum in the last few months so I hope you take my points on board.

I hope your bad news is nothing serious.

I have said all I have to say on this matter, so I will leave you alone (for now)