Litigate or die

[DonkeyRhubarb]

my advice to anyone considering using an avoidance scheme is simple -
do the due diligence on the provider and the sceme offered (if they are one of the biggies that, like MontP have been around for quite a while, then chances are that the scheme has been setup correctly and stand up to the law as is currently stands)

I would say the provider is more important than the scheme.

You want a provider who is likely to still be around in a few years when you need them, and has a track record of taking on HMRC.

Montpelier ticks both of these boxes.

[RockTheBoat]

I guess I can thank my punk roots for having the "I will not be bullied by the state" attitude, but seriously.

How many avoidance cases have HMRC taken to court and actually won?

my guess would be ZERO.

they can bully and intimidate all they like, but at the end of the day it is the courts that decide the law, not Josh and his henchmen.

as unpleasant as the experience is, we need to stand up to them and hold them to account wherever possible. if we all start meekly accepting what they deem to be the rules and interpretation we are on a slippery slope to even more of a police\fascist\communist\"hear nothing, see nothing, say nothing" state.

my advice to anyone considering using an avoidance scheme is simple -
do the due diligence on the provider and the sceme offered (if they are one of the biggies that, like MontP have been around for quite a while, then chances are that the scheme has been setup correctly and stand up to the law as is currently stands)

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Worth a read for anyone considering using a tax avoidance scheme.

HMRC used to have a policy of only litigating where they had at least a 50% chance of winning, but it seems that this is no longer the case.

I guess the number of ir35 cases they have won/lost shows that the 50/50 rule went out of the window years ago.

http://www.taxbar.com/documents/Lititgate_or_Die_PW.pdf