BN66 get out: Any experts here have a view on this?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I heard from someone who has been in contact with Tim Warr.

Tim told this person that HMRC settled with one client at "30% tax discount and no interest" to avoid it going to a tribunal.

I have to say I find this very hard to believe.

[BrilloPad]

I heard from someone who has been in contact with Tim Warr.

Tim told this person that HMRC settled with one client at "30% tax discount and no interest" to avoid it going to a tribunal.

I have to say I find this very hard to believe.

I presume the client was nothing to do with montp, suo motu or anything bn66 related?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I presume the client was nothing to do with montp, suo motu or anything bn66 related?

On the contrary, this was someone affected by BN66 who had gone down the bn66.co.uk route.

Which is why I am highly sceptical that HMRC would offer such a deal.

[BrilloPad]

On the contrary, this was someone affected by BN66 who had gone down the bn66.co.uk route.

Which is why I am highly sceptical that HMRC would offer such a deal.

Would that mean that, if true, HMRC would be obliged to offer us the same deal? Is it worth a FOI request?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Would that mean that, if true, HMRC would be obliged to offer us the same deal? Is it worth a FOI request?

HMRC don't discuss deals. They will neither confirm nor deny.

A lot of people would jump at the chance of "no interest" let alone a "30% tax discount".

I hope Tim Warr is being straight with people.

[ir35amnesia]

HMRC don't discuss deals. They will neither confirm nor deny.
A lot of people would jump at the chance of "no interest" let alone a "30% tax discount".
I hope Tim Warr is being straight with people.

Yes 30% discount on tax (can't remember whether or not interest)
To best of my recollection:
a/ The BN66 alternative was used as a defence.
b/ The scheme used by the contractor was definitely an IR35 avoidance scheme but not the DTA Partnership.
c/ Plus his "personal disposition" assisted the settlement negotiation.

[simondolan]

HMRC don't discuss deals. They will neither confirm nor deny.

A lot of people would jump at the chance of "no interest" let alone a "30% tax discount".

I hope Tim Warr is being straight with people.

Tim's been working with contractors for years - I worked for him when I left school in fact. A thoroughly decent, honest man whom I've never heard anyone say a bad word about. Admittedly I've not spoken to him since about 1989.......

[TwitTwo]

Tim's been working with contractors for years - I worked for him when I left school in fact. A thoroughly decent, honest man whom I've never heard anyone say a bad word about. Admittedly I've not spoken to him since about 1989.......

I've been speaking to Tim on and off for about three years on this matter. I used to post here regularly and closed my account for various reasons. I felt the need to add some balance on this matter. I am a person affected by BN66 and used a DTA solution.

ir35amnesia's statement aligns with what I have been told by Tim. Tim has come across as totally honest and he has been upfront about the risks with his approach. He is totally accepting of the simple fact that a lot of us may simply wish to pay up and make this all go away. He therefore doesn't come across as someone particularly angling for lots of business on this and, being as he only charges a small amount per case (additional fees on success) one imagines that he's not exactly going to make a retirement nest-egg from this.

It's my personal view that if you can afford to pay HMRC off then it might be worth sticking with Montpelier or whoever else is fighting your case, because a few extra (comparitively small risks) do come into play IMO. But we must be aware that the action spearheaded by Montpelier has failed in every court in the land and so they are in a very weak position and we must not expect any form of settlement to arise with them. What have they got to offer or indeed threaten HMRC with now?

If you are going to be bankrupt then you may well consider going with Tim Warr, in my personal opinion. HMRC will now collect what they consider due, let us not pretend otherwise any longer. EVEN if action moves onto ECHR as has been discussed by various scheme operators, in the interim the sums will fall due and bankruptcies will occur. So the liability is present anyway, what worse can happen by using an alternative approach? There's nothing to lose in the example I use.

Myself and a few others can afford to pay but are considering use T Warr. We are weighing this up on a purely financial risk basis. That's the purpose of this post; remember, this is a purely dispassionate matter and it simply comes down to who can save you the most money? I would suggest it is at least a phone call with Mr Warr to discuss his approach in order you have a grasp of it and can make an informed assessment.

DYOR, it's your money and career.

[Vallah]

Actually Montpelier took an opinion from a Junior Barrister NOT a QC. AND we will never know whether or not the scheme worked.

BUT everyone is missing the point about bn66.co.uk . It is NOT a scheme it is using the legislation that HMRC defend to "the hilt (sic)". HAVE you ever seen case law where HMRC were arguing that someone was NOT an employee BUT self employed.

SO if you say you were actually an employee BUT your pseudo employer treated you otherwise (in order to avoid employer NI etc etc) THEN are HMRC going to drag you through the courts to prove that you were NOT employee and that IR35 did NOT apply etc etc.

Sorry if I'm missing the point, but surely for this to work, the contractor is going to have to prove that they thought they were an employee all along, but Montpelier incorrectly treated them as self employed? Surely Monteplier are going to have signed documentation to the contrary, ie partnerhsip agreements etc? Also, who would be the employee in this situation, the end client or Montpelier? Are HMRC, who have now increasingly got the weight of law on their side to go after contractors, suddenly going to change tack and go after the "employers" and basically start a wole new IR35 argument instead? Can't see it myself.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Tim's been working with contractors for years - I worked for him when I left school in fact. A thoroughly decent, honest man whom I've never heard anyone say a bad word about. Admittedly I've not spoken to him since about 1989.......

I have previously heard nothing but good things about him too. Maybe it was a case of crossed wires.

Over the past few years I've just become very suspicious of anyone who says they can help us. I've heard from a number of people who have shelled out for worthless advice.

Unfortunately, we are easy targets for the ambulance chasers.