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

[Morlock]

I know a couple of people who've had these letters requesting repayment of the loans.

Maybe Montpelier are strapped for cash. I know they are not running any schemes now.

What "loans" are these? Did they only apply in the early days of the double taxation arrangement? I was a latecomer, and I've never heard of loans being involved.

[reckless]

What "loans" are these? Did they only apply in the early days of the double taxation arrangement? I was a latecomer, and I've never heard of loans being involved.

In the earlier days of the scheme, the deductions by MTM/Montpelier were
1) 3% for MTM (Scheme provider)
2) 3% for Montpelier (at that time an 'Agency')
3) A further 4% for MTM - deferred until such time as your tax return was eventually accepted by the IR. If your tax return was not accepted, this 4% 'loan' remained with you (the client). In a way it was a kind of no-win, no-fee element.
I too recently received a letter from Montpelier asking for repayment of this 4% element for one particular tax year as they thought for some reason my tax return had been accepted by HMRC. I sent them a copy of the relevant HMRC letter which stated I was actually still under investigation for this year and have heard no more from Montpelier ever since. Hope this clarifies.

[Morlock]

In the earlier days of the scheme, the deductions by MTM/Montpelier were
1) 3% for MTM (Scheme provider)
2) 3% for Montpelier (at that time an 'Agency')
3) A further 4% for MTM - deferred until such time as your tax return was eventually accepted by the IR. If your tax return was not accepted, this 4% 'loan' remained with you (the client). In a way it was a kind of no-win, no-fee element.
I too recently received a letter from Montpelier asking for repayment of this 4% element for one particular tax year as they thought for some reason my tax return had been accepted by HMRC. I sent them a copy of the relevant HMRC letter which stated I was actually still under investigation for this year and have heard no more from Montpelier ever since. Hope this clarifies.

Ah right. That makes sense. I only ever had full 10% deducted at source. Thanks for the explanation!

[centurian]

If wealthy footballers are struggling to pay APNs, what will happen when HMRC start issuing them to tens of thousands of contractors?

Speaking of which.... only a few days later

Match of the Day's Danny Murphy and Martin Keown stung with tax bill | Daily Mail Online

'He will be on six figures at the Beeb but paying off £2.5million would be a struggle for anyone. The megastars on big wages are able to pay but for others it is proving a huge struggle

Looks like APNs are landing on the doormats of the film schemes.

MailOnline understands neither Mr Murphy or Mr Keown have settled with HMRC yet but are likely to do a deal and pay back at least some of the money tax collectors have demanded

Oh, really...

[smalldog]

Speaking of which.... only a few days later

Match of the Day's Danny Murphy and Martin Keown stung with tax bill | Daily Mail Online



Looks like APNs are landing on the doormats of the film schemes.



Oh, really...

"do a deal and pay back at least some of the money tax collectors have demanded"

I would like that deal too please!

[webberg]

"do a deal and pay back at least some of the money tax collectors have demanded"

I would like that deal too please!

The only "deal" HMRC offers on film schemes is the one announced in January 2013 and which has not changed since.

The settlement offer on some film schemes varies (i.e. is worse) than that in some cases as HMRC say that the standard terms "don't apply".

No particular reason is given for this.

You should regard the "do a deal" phrase as a bit of journalistic fantasy that has little to do with reality. A bit like HMRC thinking contractors will accept the present offer.

[smalldog]

The only "deal" HMRC offers on film schemes is the one announced in January 2013 and which has not changed since.

The settlement offer on some film schemes varies (i.e. is worse) than that in some cases as HMRC say that the standard terms "don't apply".

No particular reason is given for this.

You should regard the "do a deal" phrase as a bit of journalistic fantasy that has little to do with reality. A bit like HMRC thinking contractors will accept the present offer.

dont worry I was being incredibly sarcastic, been on this forum long enough to read between the lines. However should a precedent be set, then Im in!

[BolshieBastard]

The only "deal" HMRC offers on film schemes is the one announced in January 2013 and which has not changed since.

The settlement offer on some film schemes varies (i.e. is worse) than that in some cases as HMRC say that the standard terms "don't apply".

No particular reason is given for this.

You should regard the "do a deal" phrase as a bit of journalistic fantasy that has little to do with reality. A bit like HMRC thinking contractors will accept the present offer.

That may be so but the prominent scheme provider is taking this all the way through the courts. Here's hoping they give hmrc a very bloody nose.

[webberg]

That may be so but the prominent scheme provider is taking this all the way through the courts. Here's hoping they give hmrc a very bloody nose.

Here's hoping but the outcome is binary - win everything or lose everything.

If the provider wins I guarantee that HMRC will say it's not the same as others and will continue the fight.

Dig in for the long haul.

[anonymouse]

We now know two of them..

Gary Lineker's own goal: Match of the Day pundit stung with £1.3million tax bill | Daily Mail Online