Montpelier MTM scheme

[DealorNoDeal]

If this guy's right, then it doesn't sound like it would be much of a stretch for HMRC to go back further than 2003.

https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/comm...avoidance-case

Matt is not really impartial. He doesn't mention that he was involved with the team representing Hoey.

It feels to me like he's overegging it a bit to make the use of this discretionary power seem even more draconian.

[TheDogsNads]

Matt is not really impartial. He doesn't mention that he was involved with the team representing Hoey.

It feels to me like he's overegging it a bit to make the use of this discretionary power seem even more draconian.

You do post some absolute pap. The body of accountants also supported this proposition that HMRC now has far reaching powers following Hoey.

What's your classic advice again, contact your MP and try and get them involved, wasnt it?

[DealorNoDeal]

The body of accountants also supported this proposition that HMRC now has far reaching powers following Hoey.

Yes but the s684 power only goes back to 2003, not 1944 as Matt Hall suggested was possible.

And, if you read the FOI (CIP guidance) linked to in Matt's article, you'd see that it has only been sanctioned for use with contractor tax avoidance schemes.

See here:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...17647.pdf.html

[webby653]

Yes but the s684 power only goes back to 2003, not 1944 as Matt Hall suggested was possible.

And, if you read the FOI (CIP guidance) linked to in Matt's article, you'd see that it has only been sanctioned for use with contractor tax avoidance schemes.

See here:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...17647.pdf.html

AFAICS, the CIP guidance only covers loans. The Montpelier scheme didn't involve loans, so clearly operationally HMRC have already departed from the guidance.

Whether their use of s684 with 2001-2 and 2002-3 is another example (of them departing from the guidance) remains to be seen.

[DealorNoDeal]

AFAICS, the CIP guidance only covers loans. The Montpelier scheme didn't involve loans, so clearly operationally HMRC have already departed from the guidance.

Whether their use of s684 with 2001-2 and 2002-3 is another example (of them departing from the guidance) remains to be seen.

Fair point but "interpreting" the guidance to include other forms of disguised remuneration is one thing.

Retrospectively applying a 2003 law to prior years is another thing altogether!

[webby653]

Fair point but "interpreting" the guidance to include other forms of disguised remuneration is one thing.

Retrospectively applying a 2003 law to prior years is another thing altogether!

True.

My money is on it being a mistake/error that 2001-2 & 2002-3 were included in the notices.

[DealorNoDeal]

My money is on it being a mistake/error that 2001-2 & 2002-3 were included in the notices.

Yes, and it's not difficult to see how this could happen. A decision is made to hit the scheme with s684 but, in the all excitement, it's overlooked that the first two years pre-date the legislation. Oops.

[webby653]

The second group, identified in this HMRC FOI response, are clearly the Montpelier users. I had assumed they would only represent a small proportion of HMRC's use of s684 but it turns out to be nearly half!

I wonder how many of the 400 involved 2001-2 or 2002-3?

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...0Hall.pdf.html


Our response

1. Since its use was approved by the Contentious Issues Panel (CIP) on 13 September
2017, HMRC officers in the Counter-Avoidance Directorate have exercised the discretion
under s.684(7A)(b) ITEPA 2003 in respect of approximately 900 individuals, falling within
one of two groups. One group was comprised of around 500 individuals who used
offshore arrangements where the individuals received the majority of their income in the
form of loans. The other group was comprised of around 400 individuals who used tax
avoidance schemes which sought to obtain an advantage from double taxation
arrangements. In both categories of cases, officers in Counter- Avoidance exercised the
discretion because they considered that the end clients could not reasonably have been
expected to be aware of the requirement to operate PAYE.

[DealorNoDeal]

The second group, identified in this HMRC FOI response, are clearly the Montpelier users. I had assumed they would only represent a small proportion of HMRC's use of s684 but it turns out to be nearly half!

I wonder how many of the 400 involved 2001-2 or 2002-3?

Good find.

If you don't mind me asking, why so much interest in this?

[stonehenge]

The second group, identified in this HMRC FOI response, are clearly the Montpelier users.

That'll be the no-to-retro lot (NTRT) and the Lancashire, Lee & Johnson appeal which is headed for the upper tribunal.