• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Montpelier - initial publicity docs - anyone point me in the direction of these?

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Montpelier - initial publicity docs - anyone point me in the direction of these?

    Hi, I am in the process of giving my story to a journalist and as everything is so historic now in our case, no longer have documentation detailing the legality / compliance / QC approval or otherwise of the above scheme. Could anyone point me in the right direction or help in any way with this. Post on here or DM me if preferred. Thanks

    #2
    Originally posted by SummerhillLass View Post
    Hi, I am in the process of giving my story to a journalist and as everything is so historic now in our case, no longer have documentation detailing the legality / compliance / QC approval or otherwise of the above scheme. Could anyone point me in the right direction or help in any way with this. Post on here or DM me if preferred. Thanks
    Going to the press doesn't help those of us still going through this process ... once that story hits the press then you cant control it so many of us have resisted the temptation to help others still fighting

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by CanPayButWouldRatherNot View Post
      Going to the press doesn't help those of us still going through this process ... once that story hits the press then you cant control it so many of us have resisted the temptation to help others still fighting

      Are you implying that I am doing something wilfully wrong and that will hinder our cause, which as I understand it is to highlight to the general public what is happening with retrospective taxation and the piling on of interests and penalties and Employer's NI ?? The journalist came from a trusted source and I am an articulate and intelligent individual, hugely impacted by this over a decade and a half of psychopathic bullying letters, even though I have never worked in the IT industry. What is it you are actually doing, may I ask? How does awfulising about my post help anything or anyone ?

      Comment


        #4
        PM me.
        Best Forum Adviser & Forum Personality of the Year 2018.

        (No, me neither).

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by SummerhillLass View Post
          Are you implying that I am doing something wilfully wrong and that will hinder our cause, which as I understand it is to highlight to the general public what is happening with retrospective taxation and the piling on of interests and penalties and Employer's NI ?? The journalist came from a trusted source and I am an articulate and intelligent individual, hugely impacted by this over a decade and a half of psychopathic bullying letters, even though I have never worked in the IT industry. What is it you are actually doing, may I ask? How does awfulising about my post help anything or anyone ?


          All of these terrible stories of APN hell end up either being ignored by the press or twisted to fit the 'money grabbing, tax avoiding contractors' image they know resonates with a populist culture and associated press

          You might want to highlight HMRC clown show but our fear is we just stir up more ... evil tax avoiding contractor scum headlines which isnt helpful.

          You are better off following up the complaints with your MP and sitting in his office waiting room and being a pain in the harris ... ONLY they have the power to make HMRC change their policy

          BIG group are trying to whip up some twitter and social media campaigns which is worthy but the underlying message that the public have is .. we had it coming ... rightly or wrongly that will probably never get changed in Joe Publics mind.

          Comment


            #6
            Hi Can't Pay, I am actually doing all those things as well and have been for some time. Seeing my MP tomorrow - on twitter constantly and open to any other action. TBH, I can see how radicalisation works now ! Thanks for your comment; my position is very different to yours I feel but my intention is not to harm anyone. I do not believe I should have to hide or be ashamed or frightened. I am a professional counsellor myself so my word will stand for something, I believe ...

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by SummerhillLass View Post
              Hi Can't Pay, I am actually doing all those things as well and have been for some time. Seeing my MP tomorrow - on twitter constantly and open to any other action. TBH, I can see how radicalisation works now ! Thanks for your comment; my position is very different to yours I feel but my intention is not to harm anyone. I do not believe I should have to hide or be ashamed or frightened. I am a professional counsellor myself so my word will stand for something, I believe ...
              Just remember the PM I sent you on Gauke.

              You can choose to believe your word will stand for something. I suspect your name will end up standing for mud.

              Remember the CPBWRN and I wish you well. We are trying to help. The vast majority of CUK posters hate you and us.

              Comment


                #8
                Gauke 2008
                ----------
                The retrospective nature of the clause is deeply troubling. We fully share the Government’s concern about the issue that it is trying to address. There is a problem with the arrangements and it is perhaps more than just a kink in the system, as the Economic Secretary put it. Trading profits derived from UK land are being received tax free by UK residents and domiciled individuals because of schemes involving the establishment of offshore trusts, specifically in the Isle of Man.

                The existing legislation appears to deal with the issue where the UK residents or domiciled individuals are partners in the relevant offshore funds, but it does not seem to work where the partners are trusts and the UK individuals are benefiting from the arrangement. There is not a problem with trying to address that point, but there is a point of principle here. The proposal essentially states that the amendments contained in the clause are to be treated as always having had effect. Either the law exists or it does not. It is troubling when the Government state that the law in the past is something because that is what they say it is now. That is essentially what subsection (4) states.

                This is partly an issue of simple democracy. It raises issues about EU law and legitimate expectations. I shall not pursue that point, but the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall is right to raise it. In part, it cuts to the question of the certainty and stability of the UK tax system. For investors, the idea that UK tax law is likely to be changed retrospectively is unattractive, and the UK is, for various reasons, acquiring a reputation for having an uncertain and unstable tax system, which is bad for the UK economy.

                Gauke 2012
                ----------
                Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury, Conservative)
                To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people had to pay additional tax following the coming into force of section 58(4) of the Finance Act 2008; and if he will make a statement.

                Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 18 June 2012, c723W)

                David Gauke (Exchequer Secretary, HM Treasury; South West Hertfordshire, Conservative)
                UK residents are taxable on their worldwide income wherever it arises—including situations where it arises by way of foreign partnerships. Section 58 of Finance Act 2008 was enacted to help put that beyond doubt and in so doing, made clear that a wholly artificial tax avoidance scheme involving a foreign partnership comprised of foreign trustees did not work. As section 58 retrospectively clarified existing legislation, its introduction had no affect on any taxpayers' tax position.

                ===========================================
                Now let the CUK trolls jump in.....

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by PokemonStay View Post
                  Just remember the PM I sent you on Gauke.

                  You can choose to believe your word will stand for something. I suspect your name will end up standing for mud.

                  Remember the CPBWRN and I wish you well. We are trying to help. The vast majority of CUK posters hate you and us.
                  Expand please

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Manic View Post
                    Expand please
                    Any bigger and I will be as big as MF.

                    Almost all on CUK believe they are real contractors and everyone else is a disgusted employee. And will happily sacrifice all others. try reading the future of contracting sub forum.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X