Reply to: MTM IR35 Scheme

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Message for Grim Reaper

I mentioned your predicament to Montpelier. I'm sure if you call them they will be able to reassure you that there is nothing to worry about.

Cheers
DR

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Hi All,

Some bad news. Just reading the discussions regarding the finance Bill 2008 in the house of commons. There was a posting showing the discussion taking place during the reading of the bill... you can find this here.

http://www.publications.parliament.u...m/80522s01.htm


If you read the discussion (all 3 pages) you will see that an amendemnt to the bill was proposed. This amendment would have removed the "retrospective element". However a vote was taken on this and only 7 people voted for the amendment and 13 against. As a result it sounds like the bill is going through unchanged (or thats what I can infer from the discussions)

Look for the words "clause 55, page 27, line 31". This is the line in the Finance Bill which contains the retrospective element, and it is this that which is being discussed. The vote is shown on the 3rd page. Pls shout if I have interepred this incorrectly.

Sorry to bring bad news.

You have read it correctly. It is down to Montpelier now to try and stop it through a Judicial Review.

You may want to switch to the "BN66 - Time to fight back" thread where most of the discussions are taking place.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Donkey,
My latest letter suggests I have 30 days to get accounts from Montpelier. HMRC investigation unit tried contacting MTM in October lasy year, but have had no response - no change there.
So they are now putting the onus onto me to get the accounts for them within 30 days or face a penalty ! Sounds a bit of a raw deal given that I can't get as much as a grunt out of MTM.
My own accounts are not good enough for them either...
Bloody mavellous.

Hi, I haven't heard of anyone else receiving this letter. Maybe others are in the post. I would phone Montpelier on Tuesday and hassle them until they sort it out. I will also make them aware of it.

Next time, can you post on the "BN66 - Time to fight back" thread, which more people are following.

Cheers
DR

[futurecat]

Bad News. Finance Bill Debated

Hi All,

Some bad news. Just reading the discussions regarding the finance Bill 2008 in the house of commons. There was a posting showing the discussion taking place during the reading of the bill... you can find this here.

http://www.publications.parliament.u...m/80522s01.htm


If you read the discussion (all 3 pages) you will see that an amendemnt to the bill was proposed. This amendment would have removed the "retrospective element". However a vote was taken on this and only 7 people voted for the amendment and 13 against. As a result it sounds like the bill is going through unchanged (or thats what I can infer from the discussions)

Look for the words "clause 55, page 27, line 31". This is the line in the Finance Bill which contains the retrospective element, and it is this that which is being discussed. The vote is shown on the 3rd page. Pls shout if I have interepred this incorrectly.

Sorry to bring bad news.

[Grim Reaper]

Donkey,
My latest letter suggests I have 30 days to get accounts from Montpelier. HMRC investigation unit tried contacting MTM in October lasy year, but have had no response - no change there.
So they are now putting the onus onto me to get the accounts for them within 30 days or face a penalty ! Sounds a bit of a raw deal given that I can't get as much as a grunt out of MTM.
My own accounts are not good enough for them either...
Bloody mavellous.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Folks.

The status of the Finance Bill 2008 can be seen using this webpage.

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/...8/finance.html

As you can see it is now moving along and will eventually become law. The key stages are those called "Comm" and "PP" which allow some form of debate and amendments to be made. If any changes can be made they are likely to be as a result of House of Commons debate.

What can we do? Well we can all write to our MP's to voice our concerns. The more people that write.. the more likley that we can force some kind of change. Writing to your MP is very easy and takes no more than 5 minutes! Just enter your PostCode in the Website below and you will be able to see who your local MP is and send an email instantly.

WWW.WRITETOTHEM.COM

These people are paid to represent us and so do not be cynical about this process. Below is a sample letter for you to use.

"

Dear MP,


Regarding Budget Note 66 AND the 2008 Finance Bill

I am writing to you regarding the 2008 Finance Bill which is currently being discussed in the House Of Commons. In particular I would like to draw your attention to Page 27 of Volume I of the Bill, which relates to "Double Taxation Arrangements".

The bill contains amendments which clarify the scope of existing "Double Taxation" law, which currently is ambiguous in many respects. However the proposed 2008 bill also contains a retrospective element which is incredibly rare for a piece of legislation. This retrospective element would see many innocent self employed individuals being mercilessly targeted by the HMRC.

Although I support changes in the law to clarify existing legislation, introducing a retrospective element is likely to result in blatant abuse of the tax laws by HMRC, especially as the existing laws were unclear to begin with.

Being a loyal voter for several years, I really would appreciate your support in forcing an amendment to this bill during its current reading so as to exclude this retrospective element which is grossly unfair



Yours faithfully


JOE BLOGGS

"


I for one am also going to write to as many Lords as possible, using the same website. Realistically though the House of Commons is our best bet, as the house of Lords is pretty toothless.

Please can you propogate this email on other message boards relating to this subject.

Futurecat,

I have e-mailed this link to 30 or so scheme members I'm still in contact with.

Incidentally, you can find a list of MPs sitting on the Treasury Committee here:
http://www.parliament.the-stationery.../430/43001.htm

[DonkeyRhubarb]

BN66 - Time to fight back!!!

For info, I have started a new thread to discuss tactics for fighting the retrospective legislation.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Anyone spoken to Montpelier recently?

When I contacted them a few weeks ago they said they planned to challenge the retrospective clause on the basis of the human rights act before it became law. If that didn't work then there was still a chance of defending the scheme depending on the interpretation of the new legislation, although this sounded like a bit of a long shot to me. I have to say, perhaps not surprisingly they didn't come across as confident as when I'd spoken to them on previous occasions.

If the legislation gets passed, then I'm going assume it's "game over" and start making contingency plans (booking flights to Rio etc. )

Has anyone heard anything new?

[BrilloPad]

I think its all about interpretation, if the IR have to clarify it - surely that must mean it was so open to interpretation, that a loophole was exposed.

HMRC case disappears in a puff of logic!

[BrilloPad]

I'm not HMRC or Tim Warr and I resent the implication that I'm only saying what I'm saying because I've got a vested interest. What I've said may actually help if you can be bothered reading to the end of this comment.

Are you Kevin the teenager?

Why don't you just accept that I've got my point of view and you've got yours? It's not about what's right and wrong. I'll take NotAllThere's advice regarding you and not respond to your comments any more; hopefully you'll return the courtesy.

The point about going on about the providers is as follows. If you can establish that the promoter knew about the possibility of retrospective legislation being introduced but didn't tell you then you have at least a remote possibility of suing them for any loss because there's been inadequate duty of care shown. In addition to that, under the new HMRC penalties regime, it means that you have a chance of getting no penalties because you acted reasonably. Both of those things could ultimately save YOU money. No need to thank me.

I can't see myself suing motpelier(I hope they aren't reading this) - but the point about penalties is interesting. If I ever get any I will bear it in mind.

Thing is that I accept that montpelier is not for some people - I have formed the opinion from your posts that you think anyone is mad to join montpelier - even immoral. Have I done you an injustice with that comment?

Can I ask what your interest in the IOM stuff is? You have posted some interesting loinks so clearly know alot. Not sure if you know from my other posts, but I contract at an investment bank(I am 24 years IT, 22 years in IB, 20 years contract) and have been with montpelier for 2 years now.

[BrilloPad]

Why is everyone paying so much attention to this article ? We should keep on looking around for developments...

[DonkeyRhubarb]

What can we do? Well we can all write to our MP's to voice our concerns.

Does anyone have any idea what Montpelier are doing? I spoke to them a couple of weeks ago but they were pretty vague.

Weren't they supposed to be challenging the legislation?

[cailin maith]

Not that I have any personal interest in any of this but the one thing in the article that I found interesting is the statement about it clarifying existing legislation.

I can see the argument against introducing new legislation and applying it retrospectively but a clarification of existing legislation must surely be a different thing.

I think its all about interpretation, if the IR have to clarify it - surely that must mean it was so open to interpretation, that a loophole was exposed.

[gadgetman]

Not that I have any personal interest in any of this but the one thing in the article that I found interesting is the statement about it clarifying existing legislation.

I can see the argument against introducing new legislation and applying it retrospectively but a clarification of existing legislation must surely be a different thing.

The story described in the article is a possibility that we are already aware of.

We still don't know whether tax will be collected retrospectively.

Why is everyone paying so much attention to this article ? We should keep on looking around for developments...

[Likely]

Maybe he did good things in the past and has good contacts - but running scare stories is not really cricket.

On the other hand, it is so obviously made up that it would only lure the very stupid.

I do wonder if he meant Montpelier or another IOM company?

The story described in the article is a possibility that we are already aware of.

We still don't know whether tax will be collected retrospectively.

Why is everyone paying so much attention to this article ? We should keep on looking around for developments...