Phil Manley question and answer session

[phil@pmtc]

Regarding the article, there is a reason I cant publicly offer my thoughts on that at this point but this fact in itself probably answers the main query regarding it.

[InNZ]

Smooth Commercial Law

Phil,
One of the things that was being offered when I signed up with you, was the investigation by Smooth Commerial Law into mis-selling. Is this still ongoing and if so, are there any updates?

[OutRiding]

Give me a call in morning. The short answer is (and I suspect other advisors will confirm) that HMRC are making it up as they go along. However there is now a potential way to sort this.

Sent you a PM

[BrilloPad]

haha kinda appeals to my humour also tbf.it was originally Phil Manley Tax then someone pointed out that it would be PMT!

Errr - sorry about that! But someone would have noticed sooner or later.....

[phil@pmtc]

Phil,
One of the things that was being offered when I signed up with you, was the investigation by Smooth Commerial Law into mis-selling. Is this still ongoing and if so, are there any updates?

Probably best (for obv reasons) if discuss somewhere that isn't on a public forum! Give me call this aft after 1500 pls
Cheers
Phil

[phil@pmtc]

Sent you a PM

just replied, ta

[WalterWhite]

[QUOTE=phil@pmtc;2651046]

How did you end up promoting a solution to the loan charge?

I didn't, I was asked if I would consider a solution (which I did) and offer opinion on if it worked (I felt it did).
Its prob relevant to note the following

1. I was not the person who devised the scheme.
2.I was not a shareholder or director of insella
3.I do not make, nor will ever make a single penny of profit from insella or the scheme. This is not clever careful wording, it is simply factual. I did not charge fees for considering the scheme. In layman terms, it provides zero benefit to my financial situation whatsoever under any circumstance. There are no payments to me directly or indirectly. There is no financial gain.

What are the chances (%) of success in your opinion?
Its impossible to provide a %. I believe its better than anything else that was out there. That is all.

Do you feel any other "schemes to fix a scheme work?
If yes, did you ever suggest them to your clients, or just your own?

It wasn't my own as explained above. However, its a fair query so, I think there a few others which have elements of reasonableness to them. Even the one which creates most abuse (vanquish) has logic behind it. Do I think it (vanquish) will work? probably not - though its based on EU treaties and there is a precedent (fisher v HMRC) but I don't think it will work on its own - but its not awful. Just that in this day and age its an uphill battle to say the least so that's why I didn't nor wouldn't offer it to anyone I know. There are a few which ive seen which are quite frankly a scam.
I would add btw that afaik there is no actual definition of a scheme. Its basically any interpretation or planning that differs from HMRC. Therefore this includes any thoughts or suggestions that HMRC are interpreting legislation incorrectly. It does not matter whether its called a scheme or not. Its the same. Think about this people.

If no, why is yours different?
as above

Why did you pull your website down on 25th April, two days before the Times Article?
I didn't, its not my website and I have zero control of it... However, even if it was the answer is out there and quite clear. After April 5th it was irrelevant.

How do people that have taken up your solution contact you in the future if they have any problems?
People may call or accuse me of many things but hiding away isn't exactly one of them now is it!

Do you feel your unprofessional comments towards Mel Stride and HMRC on Twitter actually help anybody associated with this whole mess?
Ive answered this previously a few days ago so wont waste time doing so again (this isn't meant as a defensive or aggressive response but a factual one)

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions Phil. Also, thanks to Brillopad for arranging.

Apologies, I didn't realise you had answered my final question already.

If somebody would be kind enough to point me in the direction of this, that would be great.

PS. I really hope Jesse Norman takes you up on your offer to him on Twitter yesterday

[BrilloPad]

Apologies, I didn't realise you had answered my final question already.

If somebody would be kind enough to point me in the direction of this, that would be great.

I think this is the one: -
https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...er#post2628221

Someone on here has said that my Twitter comments sound like I am drunk which is somewhat pointlessly offensive (though admittedly and contradictorily slightly amusing also), I do get emotional about this, so would you if you heard some of the messages left on my phone, or read some of the emails I get daily. I would be a poor example of a human if i didn't recognise the pain and anguish suffered by others.

[phil@pmtc]

[QUOTE=WalterWhite;2651142]

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions Phil. Also, thanks to Brillopad for arranging.

Apologies, I didn't realise you had answered my final question already.

If somebody would be kind enough to point me in the direction of this, that would be great.

PS. I really hope Jesse Norman takes you up on your offer to him on Twitter yesterday

Just had quick glance and im now wondering whether I only answered it in my head and not on here!?

Therefore I shall answer again anyway. The question was posted at a time when Melvyn was still in post as Finance Minister and so ill respond in that sense.

Mel will never back down and admit that he has lied to Parliament, he simply cant do this as he places his career ahead of thousands of LC victims lives. We have spent years trying to discuss in a reasonable manner why the LC is simply wrong. We have been met by mistruths, deception and outright lies. Therefore its absolutely reasonable to assume that such a 'professional' approach is futile. Does anybody really expect them to one day say 'ah yes Mr Manley/Webber/Gordon/Hall that's a v good point you make, let us immediately admit to breaking the ministerial code and remove the draconian LC'

Therefore the line of attack must change. Others can wear nice suits and send letters back and forth forever more if they wish but I see nothing to be gained from such an approach and history proves this to be pointless. The only hope is to make the position unbearable for Melvyn and his co conspirators. We need him out of the role whatever it takes, otherwise we lose. We are already at rock bottom in that people are dying, quite literally and its an absolute tragedy. There is no further to fall. So do we a/Continue with the same approach of 'being professional' (which as a side note id suggest is a man made concept which doesn't especially mean anything) despite it constantly failing for the reasons above or b/do we at least try something else which I know is bothering them greatly. The HMRC press office have been known to (ridiculously) call national papers asking 'what has Manley told you'. The only reason they do this is because it concerns them. This is just one small example of why I say there is a reason behind what I accept can seem like madness. Its not just name calling for the sake of it as id agree that achieves nothing. Its an approach to simply try and improve matters as the standard one simply isn't/wasn't working at all and indeed played into their hands. It was an approach which allowed us all to get here in the first place so to simply continue with it would, in my opinion, be more crazy than my less 'professional' attempts to create change.
Hope this rather waffling answer makes sense - had to type in a rush as busy but happy to clarify later if required.

ta
phil

[WalterWhite]

[QUOTE=phil@pmtc;2651170]

Just had quick glance and im now wondering whether I only answered it in my head and not on here!?

Therefore I shall answer again anyway. The question was posted at a time when Melvyn was still in post as Finance Minister and so ill respond in that sense.

Mel will never back down and admit that he has lied to Parliament, he simply cant do this as he places his career ahead of thousands of LC victims lives. We have spent years trying to discuss in a reasonable manner why the LC is simply wrong. We have been met by mistruths, deception and outright lies. Therefore its absolutely reasonable to assume that such a 'professional' approach is futile. Does anybody really expect them to one day say 'ah yes Mr Manley/Webber/Gordon/Hall that's a v good point you make, let us immediately admit to breaking the ministerial code and remove the draconian LC'

Therefore the line of attack must change. Others can wear nice suits and send letters back and forth forever more if they wish but I see nothing to be gained from such an approach and history proves this to be pointless. The only hope is to make the position unbearable for Melvyn and his co conspirators. We need him out of the role whatever it takes, otherwise we lose. We are already at rock bottom in that people are dying, quite literally and its an absolute tragedy. There is no further to fall. So do we a/Continue with the same approach of 'being professional' (which as a side note id suggest is a man made concept which doesn't especially mean anything) despite it constantly failing for the reasons above or b/do we at least try something else which I know is bothering them greatly. The HMRC press office have been known to (ridiculously) call national papers asking 'what has Manley told you'. The only reason they do this is because it concerns them. This is just one small example of why I say there is a reason behind what I accept can seem like madness. Its not just name calling for the sake of it as id agree that achieves nothing. Its an approach to simply try and improve matters as the standard one simply isn't/wasn't working at all and indeed played into their hands. It was an approach which allowed us all to get here in the first place so to simply continue with it would, in my opinion, be more crazy than my less 'professional' attempts to create change.
Hope this rather waffling answer makes sense - had to type in a rush as busy but happy to clarify later if required.

ta
phil

It does, and your answers on here have put my mind at ease regards the doubts I did have (I know this isn't a huge factor in the grand scheme of things). Thanks again, and keep up the good work