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

[NAUTICAL]

Potential Liability

Will be responding to the Survey tomorrow. Thinking about the questions led me to wonder about my own potential liability. I stayed with Montpelier for a couple of years post April 2008, using their 'loan' scheme, as I thought that if I jumped ship they might not support me if and when HMRC came along. Can anyone advise if that 'loan' scheme is the same as the EBT one that got recent press coverage via the Rangers football team case ? Anybody got thoughts as to whether that Montpelier scheme has a good likelihood of a favourable outcome for participants ?

[TalkingCheese]

Survey

For any NTRT members who haven't filled in the survey...

SURVEY

And for non NTRT members...

Join
then
SURVEY

[CanPayButWouldRatherNot]

I am in the same boat (excuse the pun) .... I tend to look anxiously at this thread ..

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...er-trusts.html

Will be responding to the Survey tomorrow. Thinking about the questions led me to wonder about my own potential liability. I stayed with Montpelier for a couple of years post April 2008, using their 'loan' scheme, as I thought that if I jumped ship they might not support me if and when HMRC came along. Can anyone advise if that 'loan' scheme is the same as the EBT one that got recent press coverage via the Rangers football team case ? Anybody got thoughts as to whether that Montpelier scheme has a good likelihood of a favourable outcome for participants ?

[Ninja]

They're at it again!

The following is an excerpt from Hansard (4 Dec 2012) of a committee of MP's discussing a proposed amendment to accrued pension benefits.

Does anyone out there have Lady Hermon (North Down, Independent), Christopher Leslie (Nottingham East, Labour) or John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington, Labour) as their MP?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lady Hermon (North Down, Independent)

The Bill must, of course, be compatible with the European convention on human rights and the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court. Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on whether this retrospective provision on accrued property rights is compatible with the convention? Would it be in keeping with our commitments under the convention to take away property rights retrospectively and without compensation?

Christopher Leslie (Nottingham East, Labour)

The hon. Lady has hit upon an important point. There are questions about whether it impinges on basic human rights to claw back retrospectively property—assets—that has been legitimately accrued, yet there is a provision here in the Bill to allow that to happen. Of course, Ministers could say, “Well, even though we’ve allowed for the possibility of retrospectivity, we’re not actually legislating for it now, although we might want to leave open the door to do it in the future.” That would be the point when it would impinge on the convention. She makes an incredibly important point. That is the extent of the possible outrage being left open in the Bill. All legislation is supposed to be signed off as being compatible with the ECHR, but that is a moot point and a matter of interpretation.

John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington, Labour)
“…I believe that we should seek to avoid that, and the way to do so, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East has said through his amendment, is to ensure that those accrued rights are protected and that the Government do not have a vast array of powers retrospectively to interfere in people’s pensions. We can also protect pensions by ensuring that employees are, through their trade unions, properly represented and consulted—and, yes, their consent sought—on any changes that the Government might want to make in the future...”

Christopher Leslie (Nottingham East, Labour)

“I suppose it is a case of diet consultation—or consultation-lite—versus full-fat consultation, which I know that my hon. Friend would be far more keen to see. I think he has done the House a service by casting some light on those issues, but I hope he will forgive me if I focus mostly on amendment 10 and the issue of retrospectivity, which is, ultimately, to me one of the worst aspects of the Bill.

I am glad that the Minister said that the Government have an open mind on retrospectivity—at least, he said that they do not have a closed mind, which is a similar thing. We hope for great things in the other place when the question is considered. He gave a set of reasons: a court might come along and set aside scheme regulations or there might be technical reasons for raiding people’s accrued savings and pension benefits retrospectively. I must say to the Minister, however, that when the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—for it was he—promised “No ifs, no buts” and said that he did not want that retrospectivity, not to have put that particular provision clearly and explicitly in the Bill is a major failing that will leave many employees with a sour taste in their mouths. They want some pretty basic protections to stop the notion of clawback and the ability of Ministers to sequester savings that they thought were safe—the deferred wages they have set aside for their long-term well-being…”


(My italics)

Let's all see what happens & draw some useful parallels with our own cause.

[BettySwollocks]

I am in the same boat (excuse the pun) .... I tend to look anxiously at this thread ..

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...er-trusts.html

I also stayed with Montpellier for two further years post 2008 before going perm and HMRC opened an enquiry into my 2009 return. Montpellier forwarded all the requested information and I've heard nothing further from HMRC...

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Survey reminder

We need more responses.

Link to survey

If you can't afford £200 to join NTRT, let us know and we'll work something out.

[lucozade]

Good response from MP

Just received a letter from Mark Menzies MP.

He will be attending the briefing meeting in January - diary permitting.

[Ninja]

Tue 8 Jan 2013

Invitation sent to MP, and had a positive reply already

[funjim]

Got a Gauke response who do i ping it too?

He encloses the standard Gauke reply which is as below. What was good is that my MP says. "if there is anything else I can do for you please feel free to get in contact with me".

So no doors being closed.

The Gauke reply:

"it is important to understand that Mr X chose to use a wholly artifical scheme in order to avoid the tax he is due to pay as a resident of the UK upon his income earned in the UK. the scheme was described as aggressive by the last Government when introducing section 58, a description which is apt for a scheme which aimed to produce an effective tax rate of around 5 per cent or less.

"

got a variation of this - who shall i send it to - and is there a reply available?


fj

[SantaClaus]

got a variation of this - who shall i send it to - and is there a reply available?


fj

Hi fj

Just send it to info at notoretrotax org uk and Whitehouse will pick it up.

Cheers

Santa