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

[reckless]

I agree it's unlikely MontP are/were FSCS-regulated, so doubtful there's any mileage in a claim against the FSCS. But I also take issue with the notion that we were mis-sold anything - for I believe the scheme very likely did work when it was sold. I think the problem is simply that Mr Gittins & Co were just too clever for HMRC/Treasury bods............ Turning on MontP to me does not feel like the right thing to do - and the one thing we still have on our side is the knowledge that despite everything, we know we did nothing wrong. It was they who moved the goalposts after full-time and then recalculated the score.

An excellent summary Honeyridges of this whole sorry debacle, the reason for our treatement, the guilty and innocent parties and an observation of today's blame culture. I agree that MontP have done nothing wrong; they were simply too clever for the HMRC. The predecessor 'Suo Moto' scheme translates from Latin as 'on your own initiative', which is exactly what we all did some 10 years ago or more.

[BrilloPad]

An excellent summary Honeyridges of this whole sorry debacle, the reason for our treatement, the guilty and innocent parties and an observation of today's blame culture. I agree that MontP have done nothing wrong; they were simply too clever for the HMRC. The predecessor 'Suo Moto' scheme translates from Latin as 'on your own initiative', which is exactly what we all did some 10 years ago or more.

Who cares what you think? I might do - but no one of any importance does. They say a smart person will beat a thug - this case if proof that its not the case.

HTH BISDI
For CanPayButWouldRatherNot - Cheers for the email - I am in Wales this week so did not reply directly. Hope That Helps But I Seriously Doubt it. There are alot of people here who think that human rights, the rule of law, due process etc. should count for something. They are seriously deluded. I would sort thios out on my own - but why bother? Its easy for me - I'm going bankrupt. Everyone else affected seems to be totally spineless. Anyways, hope you are well

[Rob79]

I agree it's unlikely MontP are/were FSCS-regulated, so doubtful there's any mileage in a claim against the FSCS. But I also take issue with the notion that we were mis-sold anything - for I believe the scheme very likely did work when it was sold. I think the problem is simply that Mr Gittins & Co were just too clever for HMRC/Treasury bods and came up with a scheme that took the p1ss, was clearly abusive of the DTT but would in all likelihood succeed if challenged in court. That pushed the establishment into a corner and the rest is history.

If the scheme were flawed when first sold, why did HMRC not just take cases to court as they originally stated they would? The whole BN66 nonsense of retrospective 'clarification' (and that still makes me laugh: we're not changing the law, simply 'clarifying' it) was a crude (but apparently successful) attempt to fix an ambiguity in law which was being exploited - and which would likely be upheld if challenged in court, with all the embarrassment that would bring.

I understand the pressure our current situation brings to bear - I'm feeling it myself - made worse when applied over years as is the case here. But I think all this talk of compensation is something of a reflection of the times where someone else is always to blame for everything that happens to you. If you walk into a wall you can sue the bloke who built it - rather than accept you should maybe watch where you're going.

I'm still not clear on the real motivation for the persecution users of our particular scheme have suffered through BN66 (as compared to users of the plethora of other schemes who seem only to have been forced to stop using them because they were made ineffective prospectively). We do seem to have been singled out for particularly harsh treatment in that regard. But I'm also clear who is to blame for that - and it's not MontP. It's senior HMRC officials, Treasury civil servants, weak Government ministers and to a lesser degree ordinary MPs who have been led by the nose when the one thing we ask is that they properly scrutinise bills before passing them into law.

Turning on MontP to me does not feel like the right thing to do - and the one thing we still have on our side is the knowledge that despite everything, we know we did nothing wrong. It was they who moved the goalposts after full-time and then recalculated the score.

There is no record of any company with "Montpelier" in its name on the list of FSCS defaulted companies.

The FSCS protects those who were mis-sold products by an FSCS regulated company. The compensation is for those who bought a product which did not subsequently work as advertised. There is no particular test as to why the product failed and claims can cover all manner of default from simple incompetence to serious fraud.

IF Montpelier were regulated and IF their product did not work for ANY REASON, then prima facie there is a claim.

The fact that an "investor" did or should have known or anticipated that it would not work because of a change in tax law via legislation or interpretation is not relevant.

As I said, I can't find any reference to the company on the FSCS register.

[Fireship]

I agree it's unlikely MontP are/were FSCS-regulated, so doubtful there's any mileage in a claim against the FSCS. But I also take issue with the notion that we were mis-sold anything - for I believe the scheme very likely did work when it was sold. I think the problem is simply that Mr Gittins & Co were just too clever for HMRC/Treasury bods and came up with a scheme that took the p1ss, was clearly abusive of the DTT but would in all likelihood succeed if challenged in court. That pushed the establishment into a corner and the rest is history.

If the scheme were flawed when first sold, why did HMRC not just take cases to court as they originally stated they would? The whole BN66 nonsense of retrospective 'clarification' (and that still makes me laugh: we're not changing the law, simply 'clarifying' it) was a crude (but apparently successful) attempt to fix an ambiguity in law which was being exploited - and which would likely be upheld if challenged in court, with all the embarrassment that would bring.

I understand the pressure our current situation brings to bear - I'm feeling it myself - made worse when applied over years as is the case here. But I think all this talk of compensation is something of a reflection of the times where someone else is always to blame for everything that happens to you. If you walk into a wall you can sue the bloke who built it - rather than accept you should maybe watch where you're going.

I'm still not clear on the real motivation for the persecution users of our particular scheme have suffered through BN66 (as compared to users of the plethora of other schemes who seem only to have been forced to stop using them because they were made ineffective prospectively). We do seem to have been singled out for particularly harsh treatment in that regard. But I'm also clear who is to blame for that - and it's not MontP. It's senior HMRC officials, Treasury civil servants, weak Government ministers and to a lesser degree ordinary MPs who have been led by the nose when the one thing we ask is that they properly scrutinise bills before passing them into law.

Turning on MontP to me does not feel like the right thing to do - and the one thing we still have on our side is the knowledge that despite everything, we know we did nothing wrong. It was they who moved the goalposts after full-time and then recalculated the score.

Very well said!!

[helen7]

I agree it's unlikely MontP are/were FSCS-regulated, so doubtful there's any mileage in a claim against the FSCS. But I also take issue with the notion that we were mis-sold anything - for I believe the scheme very likely did work when it was sold. I think the problem is simply that Mr Gittins & Co were just too clever for HMRC/Treasury bods and came up with a scheme that took the p1ss, was clearly abusive of the DTT but would in all likelihood succeed if challenged in court. That pushed the establishment into a corner and the rest is history.

What a load of cr*p. I think the word you are looking for is GREEDY.

When I was sold the scheme I was told it was limited to 500 people so as not to attract attention. So how did 3000 end up using it?

Do the maths. If they were getting 10% in fees. Lets assume on conservative 100k pa per consultant. Thats 30 million per year. And we are supposed to be grateful on the representations they have given so far? 2 shambles judicial review's and a failed appeal. Oh, and they can't give a penny to NTRT?

Face it folks. We were bent over and screwed by Watkins and HMRC. We took all the risk and stress, they took all the money.

[Leyther70]

What a load of cr*p. I think the word you are looking for is GREEDY.

When I was sold the scheme I was told it was limited to 500 people so as not to attract attention. So how did 3000 end up using it?

Do the maths. If they were getting 10% in fees. Lets assume on conservative 100k pa per consultant. Thats 30 million per year. And we are supposed to be grateful on the representations they have given so far? 2 shambles judicial review's and a failed appeal. Oh, and they can't give a penny to NTRT?

Face it folks. We were bent over and screwed by Watkins and HMRC. We took all the risk and stress, they took all the money.

Whilst I dont want to give up entirely on MontP, Helen does here have a very valid point, she says 500, im fairly sure it was 300 when it was sold to me and I was in the first line before the whole montp/suo motu tulipe happened.

[OnYourBikeGB]

Whilst I dont want to give up entirely on MontP, Helen does here have a very valid point, she says 500, im fairly sure it was 300 when it was sold to me and I was in the first line before the whole montp/suo motu tulipe happened.

+1. Whilst I am holding out as well for a MontP shock victory, I was told that the numbers were restricted to 300 to keep it beneath the radar. No matter what way you cut it, MontP blasted through that barrier without any hesitation. Given HMRCs motives seem to have been to bring down WG that doesn't mean S58 wouldn't have happened anyway, but it sure as hell didn't help.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Firstly, Montpelier did not have 3000 users. They had about half that number.

If Montpelier had capped the scheme then people would simply have gone elsewhere ie. deGraaf, Steed, Sanzar

deGraaf alone had 700 users.

[Retro]

Firstly, Montpelier did not have 3000 users. They had about half that number.

If Montpelier had capped the scheme then people would simply have gone elsewhere ie. deGraaf, Steed, Sanzar

deGraaf alone had 700 users.

No, if Montpelier had capped the scheme as they said they would do, they would have attracted less attention from HMRC and helped to protect the existing scheme users.

[reckless]

Whilst I dont want to give up entirely on MontP, Helen does here have a very valid point, she says 500, im fairly sure it was 300 when it was sold to me and I was in the first line before the whole montp/suo motu tulipe happened.

Ditto - I was told that the scheme would be capped at 350 when I joined (2002/3). At the time, that was part of the attraction. Ultimately letting 1500 join certainly didn't help the 'stealth' aspects of the scheme.