What's the big deal with BN66?

[Incognito]

Yeah, maybe it has, I apologise if I've cause offence.

As I keep restating, whether you win or lose is of no consequence to me.

The way I see it is members of the scheme took a gamble when they joined the scheme. I was told of a 'great' IoM scheme about 4 years ago, may have been MontP and I had a look at it. I decided there was no way I was going to get involved in it, not out of any moral sense of duty to pay my fair share of tax, but because there was no way in this world I could see me getting away with it. I don't care how many little bits of paper the scheme providers had in front of them because at the end of the day it has no legal bearing, it's just one man's musings on whether or not it works.

This is what agitates me. Scheme members took a gamble. Anyone that says they quite honestly thought it was a 100% legit scheme with no risk attached at all is either a liar or a fool. It's not tax planning, it's exploiting what they think is a loophole. And if you get away with it then well done, it was a risk worth taking. But all the bleating from the crowd about the Human Rights; being forced into the scheme because of IR35; HMRC are out to get you; Labour are going to get us all next; it's just not fair; and so on and so on is what annoys me personally.

And with that I'll leave you to fight your case. Good luck, I believe you will need it.

[Incognito]

bla bla bla bla

Oh yes, let's all talk about trains and their fancy colour scheme instead.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

The fat lady hasn't sung yet

We may lose in the end but it's not over by a long way.

HMRC won round 1 but Montpelier have already appealed to the Court of Appeal. They have committed to taking it to the Supreme Court, and ECtHR if necessary. They also have a couple of "Plan B's" up their sleeve.

PwC and KPMG are also involved in separate legal actions. The PwC action is being funded by a consortium, including one property developer who put £60M through the scheme.

HMRC have a long road ahead before they see a penny out of anyone.

[centurian]

"I do not believe that the outcome of any legal proceedings in respect of the arrangements would have been a foregone conclusion."

So was it actually legal or not ? That sounds like it could have fallen one way or the other.

[AtW]

HMRC have a long road ahead before they see a penny out of anyone.

You think you've got more resources such as time and money than HMRC?

[BolshieBastard]

So was it actually legal or not ? That sounds like it could have fallen one way or the other.

HMRC selected 4 users of the IoM scheme with the intention of putting them before the Tax Commissioners. HMRC never did put these 4 test cases to the test.

Wonder why? Perhaps its because their counsel told them the scheme was legal and they had a less than 50 \ 50 chance of winning? The alternative is after selecting the 4, they, hMRC, sat on their arses for the next 4 or 5 years and waited until with no more options left to ensure their view would prevail, they had retrospective legislation enacted.

The legality of the scheme appears indisputable since hMRC never tested it in court. The learned judge in our case also suggested the scheme was legal but, he wasnt specifically considering the legality of the scheme, more so the human rights aspect of retrospective legislation to make the scheme illegal.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

You think you've got more resources such as time and money than HMRC?

Not more than HMRC.

But more than enough to fight it until every avenue of appeal has been exhausted, and better motivated than a public body.

I know, for example, that the consortium of property developers represented by PwC have already pledged £1M.

Montpelier have their own commercial vested interest for fighting this to the bitter end.

[AtW]

You are either incredibly brave or incredibly desperate.

Good luck.

[AtW]

the human rights aspect of retrospective legislation to make the scheme illegal.

Millions of those killed by murderous regimes are turning in their mass graves now when human rights laws are used to justify right to reduce one's tax to near zero (in words of the judge).

Anyone who brings up a case citing human rights that does not involve proper human rights violations like torture, slavery etc deserves to have the case chucked out in automatic loss of argument.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

You are either incredibly brave or incredibly desperate.

Good luck.

Actually neither. Personally, I could settle tomorrow, and I have a CTD to stop any interest.

Montpelier are paying all the legal costs, so I've nothing to lose by sitting back and seeing what happens.

Those who can't afford to settle ain't got much to lose either. If it drags on for a few years, then at least it gives them time to save.