Montpelier DTA scheme bulletin

[More Lamb]

Be careful what you wish for.

Montpelier and the people behind it may have had reasons for doing what they did based on a history and connection with the history of the group which may have prevented some actions (accelerated others).

The Court appointed manager and receiver knows little about that history and from my brief conversation with him so far, he is getting up to speed before making any final decisions. When those decisions come however, past history and any adherence with oral promises that may have been made, will be unlikely to be of any influence.

Do you think what is happening could negatively impact clients who were in the 2001-08 DTA scheme or the 2008-14 loan scheme? With the loan scheme, I guess there is the added uncertainty of what happens to the loans.

What about people who have already settled with HMRC, should they be concerned too?

[webberg]

Do you think what is happening could negatively impact clients who were in the 2001-08 DTA scheme or the 2008-14 loan scheme? With the loan scheme, I guess there is the added uncertainty of what happens to the loans.

What about people who have already settled with HMRC, should they be concerned too?

The tax position on the DTA scheme is done and dusted. A case was taken and lost and despite much noise since about various appeals, I can find nothing in any pending list of cases to be heard at any UK or EU Court which will reopen the decision or reverse it.

This scheme featured "family trusts" as a means of transferring money from MtM entity to individual. I confess that the mechanism by which the family trust acquired funds to onward transfer is something that my analysis remains incomplete on.

The later loan scheme in theory at least means that somewhere loans exist. In theory these loans are assets of a trust and you would therefore hope that they were ringfenced.

However the judgement handed down quoted some examples in which the entities involved in the schemes made payments to the company now with a Court appointed manager and receiver.

Clearly I have no access to the sort of information the Regulator used to bring the case and I don't know if the examples quoted were isolated instances or part of a systemic plan. If however it is the case that money has leaked away from the trust(s) [and I stress that I have no evidence of that and am merely speculating] then the extent to which a manager/receiver may look to restore the financial situation to what it should be, will be interesting.

[BolshieBastard]

Gittins isnt in control of his destiny or string of companies any more, the court appointed officials are.

I think it's very unlikely the appointed officials, when 'upto speed,' would look to sell on the DTA Loans book. The value in the scheme of things is quite small and, they really are more interested in the mismanagement and 'loaning' of money by Gittins between his companies to his and close relatives bank accounts.

Additionally, the court case came about in part, due to people making formal complaints to the IoM financial authority. They are unlikely to throw those same people to the wolves by selling their loans on the open market.

I dont think anyone connected to Montpelier via DTA or Loans has much, if anything to worry about.

[webberg]

I am not as confident as the above poster and would encourage any impacted people to read the judgement carefully and then ask questions of the manager.

Mr Gordon Wilson of CW Consulting Limited, Third Floor, 15-19 Athol Street, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 1LB

The Judgement given was at the request of the Regulator (IOM FSA) who by virtue of who they are, can operate a jurisdiction only over regulated entities. I suggest that the Montpelier Group had and has many companies who are not regulated.

We are also aware that there are a number of connections with non IOM resident entities and again, the IOM FSA has no ability to reach them.

We would urge caution and taking careful steps in full knowledge of the situation, rather than rash steps based on speculation.

[BrilloPad]

I am more confident than BB.

Furthermore I hate provoking wasps nests. Best to let sleeping dung hills lie and all that.

IMO. IANAL. IANAA.

[More Lamb]

People who repaid 10% of their loans will be lucky to ever see that money again. I suppose the only slight positive is that it may count as a genuine repayment for the purposes of the LC?

Hopefully the thousands of other Montpelier users with loans won't be adversely affected by what's going on.

[BolshieBastard]

Well no, it 'pays' literally, for a certain poster on these forums to keep people on tenterhooks and looking over their shoulder. I have fully read the relevant documents posted. However, IANAL.

Read what I posted again. 'Gittins isnt in control of his destiny or companies.' The officials have been appointed to investigate and reel in Gittins' wayward working. This is why a 'Manager,' Receiver' and 'Inspector' have been appointed.

They are more interested in his malpractice and his alleged distributing monies intra company and to relatives. The DTA 'loan book' is the least of their worries.

What are the administrators looking to do here? Sell the loan book to give money back to the very same people who have the loans? Or, put a stop to Gittins sharp practice and recover monies allegedly distributed inappropriately?

I know which I think.

[More Lamb]

Well no, it 'pays' literally, for a certain poster on these forums to keep people on tenterhooks and looking over their shoulder.

Where there's FUD there's brass.

[webberg]

Well no, it 'pays' literally, for a certain poster on these forums to keep people on tenterhooks and looking over their shoulder.

I'm assuming that this is aimed at me?

Let's examine what is possibly of benefit to me to counsel caution and patience.

Will the appointment of the manager etc, regardless of the remit, wide or narrow, impact the progress of tax enquiries being run by HMRC? Probably not.

Will the appointment of the manager etc, mean that we can abandon our progress toward litigating the loan scheme enquiries? Probably not.

Will the appointment of the manager etc, mean that those Montpelier users who have settled and who wish to have loans written off will have an easier path to achieving that? Probably they will, but not until the manager is satisfied that to do so, brings no harm to what he has inherited.

Will the appointment of the manager etc, mean that the loan charge can somehow evaporate? Probably not.

So what benefit is there for me and my firm?

[BolshieBastard]

I'm assuming that this is aimed at me?

Let's examine what is possibly of benefit to me to counsel caution and patience.

Will the appointment of the manager etc, regardless of the remit, wide or narrow, impact the progress of tax enquiries being run by HMRC? Probably not.

Will the appointment of the manager etc, mean that we can abandon our progress toward litigating the loan scheme enquiries? Probably not.

Will the appointment of the manager etc, mean that those Montpelier users who have settled and who wish to have loans written off will have an easier path to achieving that? Probably they will, but not until the manager is satisfied that to do so, brings no harm to what he has inherited.

Will the appointment of the manager etc, mean that the loan charge can somehow evaporate? Probably not.

So what benefit is there for me and my firm?

Quacks like a duck, walks like a duck.........