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

[MMSguru]

If APNs start coming through the door in a few weeks, do we know if Montp have (or are working on) a plan for challenging these on our behalf?

[BrilloPad]

If APNs start coming through the door in a few weeks, do we know if Montp have (or are working on) a plan for challenging these on our behalf?

I would hope he is working on a plan for sueing HMRC.

Any way he could sue HMRC for lying to parliament?

[Rob79]

If APNs start coming through the door in a few weeks, do we know if Montp have (or are working on) a plan for challenging these on our behalf?

Don't rely on any party challenging APN's on your behalf.

The ONLY sensible strategy is to make your own challenge.

[lucozade]

Don't rely on any party challenging APN's on your behalf.

The ONLY sensible strategy is to make your own challenge.

Your very much misaligned to think that the majority of us will know what the hell to do to challenge these

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Your very much misaligned to think that the majority of us will know what the hell to do to challenge these

This issue will be covered in the next newsletter.

I am sure Montpelier will also offer advice if/when the time comes.

[Rob79]

Your very much misaligned to think that the majority of us will know what the hell to do to challenge these

Understood. I'll see if I can generate some standard template response which can then be refined for separate schemes.

I did actually mean a challenge in terms of not relying upon Montpelier (or indeed anybody else) to run a judicial case or some form of public campaign. I have no particular opinion about Montpelier or the other purveyors of schemes for contractors but in my world, as soon as the manure met the ventilation the intermediaries did a fine job of stepping backwards and being of no help at all.

[TAF4]

I have no particular opinion about Montpelier or the other purveyors of schemes for contractors but in my world, as soon as the manure met the ventilation the intermediaries did a fine job of stepping backwards and being of no help at all.

To be fair to Montpelier, they haven't abandoned us and I believe and hope they are still there to support their ex-clients. That support has to be largely under the radar.

In the past skirmishing with, and legally outwitting, the Inland Revenue was seen as a 'sport', and effective Tax Planning spawned a perfectly respectable industry. At some stage, probably as a result of merging Customs & Excise with IR, the sport got nasty. WG (and Montpelier) are now in a dirty war with HMRC and the actions of MP are closely monitored by them.

NTRT are our public representatives and probably (I surmise here) have very close contact with Montpelier in their development of legal and strategic challenges. Whilst in parallel, WG is likely to be seeking personal retribution in a manner that will vindicate him and the operations of his Companies in the most effective way.

NTRT, for us is the only game in town and should be supported by all victims of the S58 debacle - to the death.

JM2C

[lucozade]

Understood. I'll see if I can generate some standard template response which can then be refined for separate schemes.

I did actually mean a challenge in terms of not relying upon Montpelier (or indeed anybody else) to run a judicial case or some form of public campaign. I have no particular opinion about Montpelier or the other purveyors of schemes for contractors but in my world, as soon as the manure met the ventilation the intermediaries did a fine job of stepping backwards and being of no help at all.

Thanks Rob, appreciated.

To be fair to Montpelier they haven't disappeared and are still fighting our corner.

If it wasn't for the outrageous retrospection applied in our case and the tarnished reputation that proceeded it I would still be with them. I remember a large IT company telling me they wouldn't take me on if I was with them.

[Rob79]

Thanks Rob, appreciated.

To be fair to Montpelier they haven't disappeared and are still fighting our corner.

If it wasn't for the outrageous retrospection applied in our case and the tarnished reputation that proceeded it I would still be with them. I remember a large IT company telling me they wouldn't take me on if I was with them.

Obviously I'm not a member of your group and have no visibility as to the effort that Montpelier are putting in. If they are supportive then I'm pleasantly surprised.

Re-engaging with my more cynical side, you do perhaps need to ask yourselves a couple of questions.

1. Why are they doing this? What's in it for them? I think that we can dismiss the reputation argument as clearly HMRC are out to ruin that irrespective of guilt.

2. Are there other issues that you should be thinking about? For example are there any time limits running before which you perhaps need to file claims for recompense?

My apologies if this ignites a new debate about why I am/am not a member of the group and as such have no right to interfere. The above two questions are the first ones I would ask anybody who came to me for advice on this issue.

I repeat that I have no particular opinion of MP or its owner having never worked with or met them respectively. I'm just trying to be professionally objective.

[BrilloPad]

1. Why are they doing this? What's in it for them? I think that we can dismiss the reputation argument as clearly HMRC are out to ruin that irrespective of guilt.

I don't care. They did all they said they would and more. Though the fees they are still owed might have something to do with it. And maybe they are long term players.

2. Are there other issues that you should be thinking about? For example are there any time limits running before which you perhaps need to file claims for recompense?

You have to be joking. When in a hole stop digging. I am up to my eyeballs in poo without taking more on.