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

[Samatra]

This is a mere taste of things to come.

If wealthy footballers are struggling to pay APNs, what will happen when HMRC start issuing them to tens of thousands of contractors?

So what happens to all these footballers that have been made bankrupt if the scheme providers eventually win in court.
Do they get their assets bank and the bankruptcy is then reversed.
Hope they litigate against HMRC for damages as well

[centurian]

So what happens to all these footballers that have been made bankrupt if the scheme providers eventually win in court.
Do they get their assets bank and the bankruptcy is then reversed.
Hope they litigate against HMRC for damages as well

Less likely to happen - film schemes seem to be on more dodgy ground - HMRC have won a few cases recently, which probably explains why HMRC could be targeting them early for APNs

But not every scheme is the same - it only takes one scheme amongst that bunch to be valid - and users bankrupted in error to bring APNs into disrepute.

[harmony]

Say what you like about MTM, they've a cheek

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone else has had the same.
I was only in the scheme for 18m (and yet still the HMRC are mysteriously demanding close to 100K!!!!).
This straddled 2 tax years. One of those is apparently in dispute, the other isn't.

Ok so far. And then, 3 weeks ago I received a letter from MTM (I've received 2 letters in 8 years, they'd left me to address HMRC on my own until now and didn't respond to any comms).
This letter has billed me for the, to be fair, arranged loan repayment upon having no assessment on Trust income, for the one valid year I'm not being investigated on.

Of course you can say that's all as per contract and arrangement. But you'd have to be rather hard headed not to view that with a large slice of suspicion/frustration/downright ******* irritation at the sheer brass neck of it.

I realise some here are much closer to MTM than I, but that's eroded the last piece of sympathy / hope I had for them. And yes I realise I'll have to ******* pay, but any further requests for help etc will be heading straight for the shredder.

Still WONDERFUL NEWS that WG has got himself off...

[BolshieBastard]

I hate to say it, but I'm amongst those people. I have no sympathy for scheme users who knew they were taking the mickey with the tax rules.

There's a simple reason I support the BN66 thread and that's the retrospective nature of the legislation, I find that deeply offensive.

Behave. How do you know anyone let alone footballers 'knew they were taking the mickey'? Then you need to investigate which films they invested in to see if there was anything dodgey.

So far I've taken advice from two tax and investment planners. The first, an investment planner invested 10 grand for me with a 'reputable' insurance \ investment co. I had to wait nearly 7 years to see my initial investment sum because the company stiffed me by changing the rules after I invested and the returns were piss poor. After 10 years, I cashed in and got my initial sum plus £1200 'profit' less a £600 'termination fee.'

The second was MTM who advised me their plan was 100% legal (and so far, HMRC has been frightened to test that in court).

[BolshieBastard]

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone else has had the same.
I was only in the scheme for 18m (and yet still the HMRC are mysteriously demanding close to 100K!!!!).
This straddled 2 tax years. One of those is apparently in dispute, the other isn't.

Ok so far. And then, 3 weeks ago I received a letter from MTM (I've received 2 letters in 8 years, they'd left me to address HMRC on my own until now and didn't respond to any comms).
This letter has billed me for the, to be fair, arranged loan repayment upon having no assessment on Trust income, for the one valid year I'm not being investigated on.

Of course you can say that's all as per contract and arrangement. But you'd have to be rather hard headed not to view that with a large slice of suspicion/frustration/downright ******* irritation at the sheer brass neck of it.

I realise some here are much closer to MTM than I, but that's eroded the last piece of sympathy / hope I had for them. And yes I realise I'll have to ******* pay, but any further requests for help etc will be heading straight for the shredder.

Still WONDERFUL NEWS that WG has got himself off...

Yes, MTM did this with me. HMRC to date have not opened an investigation into one of the tax years where some money was paid in. MTM wrote and demanded payment as there's no (current) investigation.

Pay up and you'll never get it back though.

[anonymouse]

Yes, MTM did this with me. HMRC to date have not opened an investigation into one of the tax years where some money was paid in. MTM wrote and demanded payment as there's no (current) investigation.

Pay up and you'll never get it back though.

Sorry to be logical, but surely if you were with the same scheme, then all monies against that scheme would be liable?

[centurian]

Sorry to be logical, but surely if you were with the same scheme, then all monies against that scheme would be liable?

If I understand it correctly, this money is a "the scheme worked" bonus payable if HMRC don't investigate, or lose.

And because HMRC haven't investigated for one specific year (for whatever reason), MTM want the bonus for that year.

[anonymouse]

If I understand it correctly, this money is a "the scheme worked" bonus payable if HMRC don't investigate, or lose.

And because HMRC haven't investigated for one specific year (for whatever reason), MTM want the bonus for that year.

Just because HMRC haven't investigated for this one year, and given the history of this scheme, is there a time limit on when HMRC can open an investigation? If HMRC are out of time, then seems reasonable.

[stonehenge]

I know a couple of people who've had these letters requesting repayment of the loans.

Maybe Montpelier are strapped for cash. I know they are not running any schemes now.

[BolshieBastard]

Sorry to be logical, but surely if you were with the same scheme, then all monies against that scheme would be liable?

Sorry, I cant give any further details since I dont want even the remotest chance HMRC and MTM may identify me.

If I understand it correctly, this money is a "the scheme worked" bonus payable if HMRC don't investigate, or lose.

And because HMRC haven't investigated for one specific year (for whatever reason), MTM want the bonus for that year.

Correct.