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

[TAF4]

HMRC's ongoing vendetta against Montpelier

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

Wow!! That appeal judgement was published just last week.

The targeting of Montpelier, WG and their clients is becoming more evident.

[SantaClaus]

Wow!! That appeal judgement was published just last week.

The targeting of Montpelier, WG and their clients is becoming more evident.

It's the sort of behaviour we'd expect from a banana republic.

[smalldog]

Wow!! That appeal judgement was published just last week.

The targeting of Montpelier, WG and their clients is becoming more evident.

Im sure Watkin is building a nice dossier of persecution and mistreatment that he can use in court in the not too distant future. I would imagine any damages claim being very substantial!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

The problem with having a vendetta is it clouds your judgement.

Look at the botched trial of WG.

[smalldog]

The problem with having a vendetta is it clouds your judgement.

Look at the botched trial of WG.

It must be an individual greasing the wheels of the vendetta, no doubt thinking how dare he. Wonder who it is....??

[TAF4]

It must be an individual greasing the wheels of the vendetta, no doubt thinking how dare he. Wonder who it is....??

It would appear that.............
Under Gordon Brown's watch, and potentially his direction, a small group met to discuss how to nail MP and therefore WG. It resulted in the spin that was put on the Padmore legislation and the doctoring of Hansard to mislead Parliament. This gave rise to the 'Clarification' posture and resulted in the S58 retrospective legislation that stitched us up. We are collateral damage in Hector's vendetta.


The question is - who sponsored that meeting and accepted the corrupt strategy that resulted? That decision was Misfeasance of the highest order and employed 'targeted malice'. Wiki it.

'Off with his head'!!

[portseven]

As tax planning firms go are Montpelier 'big boys'??

Are they one of the biggest in the business? or small frys? just trying to see the logic in targeting Montpelier?

[BrilloPad]

As tax planning firms go are Montpelier 'big boys'??

Are they one of the biggest in the business? or small frys? just trying to see the logic in targeting Montpelier?

They broke the big rule. Tax avoidance for the rich is allowed - even encouraged. It is not allowed for the plebs.

I could turn communist at this rate. As a staunch Thatcherite that is quite a feat.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Does anyone remember the West Midlands Serious Crime Squad in the 70s and 80s?

West Midlands Serious Crime Squad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"...allegations against some of its officers of incompetence and abuses of power."

That's what certain elements in HMRC are like now.

[centurian]

They broke the big rule. Tax avoidance for the rich is allowed - even encouraged. It is not allowed for the plebs.

BP has been known to make the odd exaggeration or two - but on this occasion, he has hit the nail on the head.

Tax avoidance for the rich was tacitly encouraged - to encourage them to remain the country - 2% of something is better than 45% of nothing.

Mass marketed tax avoidance to the reasonably well off was a cardinal sin