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

[BrilloPad]

What a mess - I sense HMRC, the tax and insolvency courts and the GAAR are going to be very busy.

Unfortunately so will the <mod snip>.

FTFY

[BrilloPad]

dont disagree, we should get the fees back IF we eventually lose and thats the Rub. We havent lost yet remember until its decided by the FTT, ECHR etc. For me its one battle at a time!

How do you propose to get the fees back? They are in Barbados. Astonishing that WG is on bail.

I would settle for £500k to NTRT - and that is not a random figure.

[helen7]

How do you propose to get the fees back? They are in Barbados. Astonishing that WG is on bail.

I would settle for £500k to NTRT - and that is not a random figure.

Not sure about the rest of you but my arrangement was through an intermediary called New Media Factory. They shut up shop and went insolvent the second the finance bill changes were annouced. All the money was then through a partnership company in IOM - also gone.

I therefore doubt MontP have any legal liability.

[SleepingFireman]

DOTAS Confused

I was in the MP scheme 05-06. I've dug out my tax return for the period concerned and I cannot find a DOTAS number anywhere?

Was I in a DOTAS scheme or not?

[smalldog]

Not sure about the rest of you but my arrangement was through an intermediary called New Media Factory. They shut up shop and went insolvent the second the finance bill changes were annouced. All the money was then through a partnership company in IOM - also gone.

I therefore doubt MontP have any legal liability.

Correct you cant have any legal right over a company that no longer exists. However Montp do exist, for the moment at least!

[BrilloPad]

Correct you cant have any legal right over a company that no longer exists. However Montp do exist, for the moment at least!

All the money is gone.

[regron]

Well, finally my local By-Election was concluded after the last conservative MP's disgraceful, cash for questions debacle. His successor is also Conservative and he has arranged a face to face with me tomorrow morning.
Whilst it is too late with regards to the committee stage, I am still attending to highlight the clear retrospective element of this bill and the ridiculous proposition of introducing APN's thus forcing 1000's of contractors into Bankrupcy. Oh and also to make him aware I will not be voting for his party come the GE.

[PeterF]

For what it's worth, Nick Clegg is doing a Q&A on Twitter at midday today, maybe an opportunity to get some noise into more ears. @nick_clegg

[smalldog]

For what it's worth, Nick Clegg is doing a Q&A on Twitter at midday today, maybe an opportunity to get some noise into more ears. @nick_clegg

like why are you such a useless tw*t that got his ass kicked by Farage during the debates???!!!!

cant see him adding any comment other than the usual line which is everyone must pay their fair share of tax etc.....totally missing the whole point of our argument being 7 years and retrospective action.....hey ho....

[Oakleyacc]

Montpelier etc

When I joined the scheme, MP did warn me that although it was legal at the time, it might not remain so for very long and that they were working on alternatives and would advise scheme members accordingly.

I don't think we could expect anyone including MP to anticipate the retrospective effect of the law passed in 2008. I have no particular connection with MP but I think they have supported us as much as they could through the courts. I feel it's rather out of their hands now. Perhaps I am naive.

It is clear that between the Government and HMRC, they are determined to make examples of us so that nobody will ever want to set up a new DOTAS scheme in the future and if they do manage to bring in a bit more tax revenue, then so much the better.

At the risk of being a nerdy accountant, when HMRC receive some money from the APNs, I don't see how they can treat that money as income to them and use it for expenditure. It is still money paid to them in advance of resolving a dispute.

It would have to be posted as a liability to HMRC until they supposedly win the cases. It cannot really be treated as income to HMRC coffers until then. Perhaps they plan to treat 80% as income to them on the basis that they win 80% of their cases. That would be very dodgy accounting and similar to what would happen if they went and used the money at the bookies ! Despite what the Government says, this is NOT all about the money which is what makes it all the more sinister.