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

[DonkeyRhubarb]

HMRC's ongoing vendetta against Montpelier

HMRC hoodwinked Parliament in to passing unprecedented draconian retrospective legislation. There have been unlawful raids on Montpelier's offices. Arrests without charge. Clients and staff interviewed under caution. Then the collapse of WG's trial.

There is further evidence in this recent FTT case. Note how HMRC attempted to treat Montpelier clients far more harshly than other promoters. It didn't work because the FTT ruled against them.

http://www.financeandtaxtribunals.go...64/TC04286.pdf

HMRC probably only did a deal with George because we was a deGraaf client, not Montpelier.

I don't think it is any coincidence that we are the first contractors to receive APNs. And this is despite the fact that HMRC know full well they are chancing their arm issuing them to us because the Montpelier scheme was not notifiable under DOTAS.

[elpinar]

that might be a good idea

if you can only pay a bit ... but want to not look obsrtuctive ... you could send a letter now saying ...

dont know the figures as you havent told me yet - but i have x i can afford to give you - where x could be nothing, £10, 100, 1k, 5k 50k etc. Anything more that that i dont have.

not sure how one could be expected to know whether they could pay or not until the letter with the specific figure hits the door mat ....

[badabr]

I don't think it is any coincidence that we are the first contractors to receive APNs. And this is despite the fact that HMRC know full well they are chancing their arm issuing them to us because the Montpelier scheme was not notifiable under DOTAS.

Hi DR,

In that case was the de Graaf scheme also not notifiable?

[eek]

not sure how one could be expected to know whether they could pay or not until the letter with the specific figure hits the door mat ....

If you don't have any savings (say less than £10,000) its very unlikely you will be able to pay..

[elpinar]

all that said

is it still not true that once they do issue them. chancing their arm or not, we have 90 days to comply.

And if you have a CTD I dont see how you can poissibly not hand it over at that point - as you cant claim you dont have the cash or hardship it you have a CTD

and it seems to me as if hardship is the only reason you can get agreement to not pay

HMRC's ongoing vendetta against Montpelier

HMRC hoodwinked Parliament in to passing unprecedented draconian retrospective legislation. There have been unlawful raids on Montpelier's offices. Arrests without charge. Clients and staff interviewed under caution. Then the collapse of WG's trial.

There is further evidence in this recent FTT case. Note how HMRC attempted to treat Montpelier clients far more harshly than other promoters. It didn't work because the FTT ruled against them.

http://www.financeandtaxtribunals.go...64/TC04286.pdf

HMRC probably only did a deal with George because we was a deGraaf client, not Montpelier.

I don't think it is any coincidence that we are the first contractors to receive APNs. And this is despite the fact that HMRC know full well they are chancing their arm issuing them to us because the Montpelier scheme was not notifiable under DOTAS.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Hi DR,

In that case was the de Graaf scheme also not notifiable?

Do you know when the deGraaf scheme was first marketed to people? It would be worth finding that out.

[BrilloPad]

not sure how one could be expected to know whether they could pay or not until the letter with the specific figure hits the door mat ....

This forum throws up some gems sometimes (apart from DRs posts which are all gems).

HMRC's ongoing vendetta against Montpelier

HMRC hoodwinked Parliament in to passing unprecedented draconian retrospective legislation. There have been unlawful raids on Montpelier's offices. Arrests without charge. Clients and staff interviewed under caution. Then the collapse of WG's trial.

There is further evidence in this recent FTT case. Note how HMRC attempted to treat Montpelier clients far more harshly than other promoters. It didn't work because the FTT ruled against them.

http://www.financeandtaxtribunals.go...64/TC04286.pdf

HMRC probably only did a deal with George because we was a deGraaf client, not Montpelier.

I don't think it is any coincidence that we are the first contractors to receive APNs. And this is despite the fact that HMRC know full well they are chancing their arm issuing them to us because the Montpelier scheme was not notifiable under DOTAS.

Top post - interesting.

If you don't have any savings (say less than £10,000) its very unlikely you will be able to pay..

Some people have very low exposure. I was told once by a personal bankruptcy advisor that if someone makes you bankrupt it costs about £10k in fees!

[badabr]

Do you know when the deGraaf scheme was first marketed to people? It would be worth finding that out.

deGraaf incorporation date appears to be 13 September 2005 and I joined the scheme in Feb 2006....

[DonkeyRhubarb]

deGraaf incorporation date appears to be 13 September 2005 and I joined the scheme in Feb 2006....

That is after DOTAS came in but there are still other reasons why it might not have been notifiable. However probably best not to discuss this on a public forum.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

is it still not true that once they do issue them. chancing their arm or not, we have 90 days to comply.

You can make representations* to HMRC if you do not believe they should have been issued.

Everyone should do that. I think Montpelier can only apply for a Judicial Review if HMRC reject the representations.


*this is not an appeal in the true sense of the word because HMRC are judge and jury but they have to consider it