Reply to: BN66 - Time to fight back!!!

[administrator]

Due to an investigation regarding comments on this thread we have taken the decision to close this particular thread and continue it here:
http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...continued.html

We appreciate the help that this thread has been to individuals who are affected by this issue and want to provide assistance to you.

We would also like to point out that comments made (in jest or not) regarding actions that may be taken on these persons can land you (and us) in a lot of trouble.

Please do feel free to continue the discussion here:
http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...continued.html

[BrilloPad]

I think the general public need disclosure of costs under the freedom of information act, for this exercise.
Let's see some figures for what HMRC are spending, and what they are actually recovering.
There has to be a massive disparity. A disparity that the taxpayer is paying for.
There is a reason for the writing off of debt where cost of recovery of that debt; exceeds the value of debt recovered.
Are HMRC ignorant of the rules of simple mathematics?
Or are they simply figure juggling because they can show their masters that they recovered X amount of taxes, while keeping quiet the Z amount of litigation costs with a bit of fancy bookkeeping while demanding yet more taxpayers money with budget increases.

Indeed. And it also increases resentment towards HMRC. IMO most people are happy to pay a sensible and fair amount of tax. They hate the assumption of guilty until proved innocent.

Without IR35 I doubt montpelier would ever have got off the ground.

Might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb.

[Diver]

Mike Warburton, the senior tax partner at Grant Thornton, said: “There will be City lawyers who will think Christmas has come early. Inspectors have started taking cases on relatively small amounts, regardless of cost and there is the potential for a great deal of taxpayers’ money going off to m’learned friends.”

I think the general public need disclosure of costs under the freedom of information act, for this exercise.
Let's see some figures for what HMRC are spending, and what they are actually recovering.
There has to be a massive disparity. A disparity that the taxpayer is paying for.
There is a reason for the writing off of debt where cost of recovery of that debt; exceeds the value of debt recovered.
Are HMRC ignorant of the rules of simple mathematics?
Or are they simply figure juggling because they can show their masters that they recovered X amount of taxes, while keeping quiet the Z amount of litigation costs with a bit of fancy bookkeeping while demanding yet more taxpayers money with budget increases.

[BrilloPad]

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle4692626.ece

HM Revenue & Customs turns to City law firms to catch evadersRobert Watts

HM Revenue & Customs is planning to unleash some of the world’s most expensive lawyers on businesses and individuals suspected of evading tax.

So zealous has the tax authority’s chief, Dave Hartnett, become on taking court action in recent months, that the in-house Revenue Solicitor’s Office has been unable to cope with its workload.

To deal with a backlog of up to 1,000 cases, HMRC is for the first time planning to call in City law firms, whose partners charge up to £1,000 an hour. The policy remains at an early stage but the department has already hired Lovells to act for it in a cross-border tax case later this year.

Last year, HMRC published a new litigation strategy that said it would pursue a zero-tolerance strategy against individuals and businesses who try to dodge tax.

Related Links
Companies move abroad to escape tax
City exodus is yet another taxing issue
Previously, the department tended to cut deals with tax evaders, allowing some of them off the full amount owed if they agreed to pay up without a fuss.

Chris Oates, tax risk management partner at Ernst & Young, the accountant, said: “As a result of that policy change, more disputes now end up in court. It’s no surprise that the Revenue’s new litigious line is hitting its resources. The legal department is already under huge pressure and there have been concerns about how it would cope with the increased workload.”

Accountants fear that HMRC’s use of City law firms may prove costly to the public purse, with the Revenue showing itself keen to pursue even relatively minor cases.

Mike Warburton, the senior tax partner at Grant Thornton, said: “There will be City lawyers who will think Christmas has come early. Inspectors have started taking cases on relatively small amounts, regardless of cost and there is the potential for a great deal of taxpayers’ money going off to m’learned friends.”

Those firms likely to win business include the “magic circle” of Slaughter and May, Linklaters, Clifford Chance, Allen & Overy and Freshfields.

HMRC said yesterday: “There is no backlog with litigation. We have a very large litigation practice and we do almost all of it ourselves. As a responsible organisation we have for many years made use of the private sector to handle some of our smaller cases. We are currently experimenting with one of our middle-sized cases by asking a City firm to handle it for us.”

The decision to use more external solicitors has been driven through by Hartnett and Diane Hay, the Revenue’s deputy director of international corporation tax.

The policy has infuriated senior civil servants in the Revenue Solicitor’s Office, who fear their role is being undermined.

Stephen Camm, the partner who leads Price Waterhouse Coopers’s tax investigations practice, said that using external lawyers may speed up the Revenue’s turgid processes.

He said: “HMRC signalled that more tax disputes would be litigated but progress in turning that into reality has seemed painfully slow. Anything that HMRC can do to speed up and give taxpayers certainty earlier is to be welcomed.”

[mossman]

Questions

Doess anyone know the answer to these questions:

1 If I transferred the house and all my savings into my wife's name, then divorced her, could they go after her for the money?

2 What's the quickest you can get divorced?

3 Does the Austrian Sparbuch anonymous bank account really exist, or is it a myth?

[poppy01]

I wonder if montpelier would approve? I know they await closure notices to appeal them - hence opening up a second line of attack on <snip>. I reckon if they had a willing volunteer they would go for it - though that is my personal opinion.

why doesnt everyone send in a request for a notice of determination. make the buggers do some work... then we appeal the lot

[poppy01]

I understand EDS handled the self-assessment system when it was developed 10 or so years ago (I know, I worked on it). Wonder of they're still involved. Perhaps the reason they havent issued closure notices is they've lost all our data (I can dream) . They really are a bunch of muppets arent they.

[TheGadgetMan]

I wonder if montpelier would approve? I know they await closure notices to appeal them - hence opening up a second line of attack on <snip>. I reckon if they had a willing volunteer they would go for it - though that is my personal opinion.

...it may be true that MP are looking for a volunteer...however, I'm not that man...

anyone out there gonna volunteer to create that new smiley?

[BrilloPad]

If you really want a closure notice then I think you can get one by demanding a notice of determination. If you are sure you want to force the issue then I think you'll find you can.

I wonder if montpelier would approve? I know they await closure notices to appeal them - hence opening up a second line of attack on <snip>. I reckon if they had a willing volunteer they would go for it - though that is my personal opinion.

[TheGadgetMan]

If you really want a closure notice then I think you can get one by demanding a notice of determination. If you are sure you want to force the issue then I think you'll find you can.

No, I'm not foolish enough to 'demand' a notice of determination...I'm not so desperate to stick my head above the parapet...

BUT I do want <snip> to do his job properly...and in a way that is 'fair and equitable'...that is the point that I was trying to make...he has had ALL the info he needs for 6 years thru my tax returns - Partnership Accounts wont tell him any more than he already knows...

...but dont be surprised if he now spends another 6 months issuing closure notices...think about all that extra interest that will be racking up at 7.5% annually...multiply that by 3000 contractors...thats a sizeable wedge of OUR money... <snip> could quite probably justify a promotion on that basis alone...ie on the back of our pain...

no, I want to be treated fairly...

[ASB]

<snip> do the words 'fair and equitable' exist in your world?

If so, perhaps you can include your definition of the above words when you send your closure notice...

and, BTW, could you pull your finger out and get that closure notice to me ASAP...I need to get that Appeal off to you...you've had ALL the info for nearly 6 years now...so you've had more than ample time to sort it out...

you threatened to apply penalties if we didn't get our Partnership Accounts to you by the given date...can we penalise YOU if we dont get our Closure Notices by the end of September?...I suppose not..that wouldn't be 'fair and equitable' now, would it...

If you really want a closure notice then I think you can get one by demanding a notice of determination. If you are sure you want to force the issue then I think you'll find you can.

[TheGadgetMan]

I have seen the magna carta broken before. The depths these animals will sink to knows no bounds.

<snip> do the words 'fair and equitable' exist in your world?

If so, perhaps you can include your definition of the above words when you send your closure notice...

and, BTW, could you pull your finger out and get that closure notice to me ASAP...I need to get that Appeal off to you...you've had ALL the info for nearly 6 years now...so you've had more than ample time to sort it out...

you threatened to apply penalties if we didn't get our Partnership Accounts to you by the given date...can we penalise YOU if we dont get our Closure Notices by the end of September?...I suppose not..that wouldn't be 'fair and equitable' now, would it...

[BrilloPad]

Hi guys.

I too have been lurking for some time. I joined Montpelier mid 2007 and am yet to have my first tax return filed by them. Not surprisingly, I have been a little perplexed by the retrospective element.

Can I just say; I think Montpelier are great. Everything just works. All I have to do is submit time sheets and provide some info for tax returns. True there is not much difference in terms of take-home at the end of the day. The alternative is an administrative nightmare with the chance of being shafted by HMRC for IR35 or their next little piece of legislation to ensnare two-man limited companies.

Initially I thought of leaving them and going back to running a ltd. However, the more I have researched the issue, the more I realise what a bunch of piss takers HMRC are. After speaking to Montpelier some time ago, I learned the test cases being brought before the special tax commission (or whatever it's called) have been dropped by HMRC. This is all thanks to their new dragnet of retrospective penalty. I.e. they knew they didn't have a hope in hell of defending their stance because the laws were hopelessly flawed.

For me, this is a matter of principle now. I intend to stick by Montpelier. I hope for the sake of every single contractor that they win. There are some serious principles on the line here - not just for those who have made use their tax planning. In fact, I am also starting to think they have a fighting chance.

Anyway. I had to post to be able to subscribe to the thread, so there you have it...

Hello and welcome to the thread

Thanks for un-lurking!

Can I ask - above you cover the old scheme - are you happy with the new scheme?

BP

[BrilloPad]

Phew! There's some pretty damning stuff amongst that lot, in our favour...

<snip> how do you feel about betraying the basic tenets of the Magna Carta?...you must be real proud of yourself...

I have seen the magna carta broken before. The depths these animals will sink to knows no bounds.

[Diver]

they must achieve a "fair balance"
between the demands of the general interest of the community and the
requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights and that
there must be a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means
used and the aim pursued

reasonable?

I think not