The case centered on a dispute between various parties who had arguably either conceived, funded or promoted the scheme. The judgment includes:
- a summary of the background to the scheme which followed the introduction of 'IR35' in 1999;
- an explanation as to the development and promotion of the scheme from 2000-2003;
- names of all the companies involved including Montpelier Tax Planning (Isle of Man) Limited, Westwood, OMPS Limited, Contractor Solutions Limited ("CSL"), Executive Solutions Limited ("ESL"), MTM Consultants Limited, MTM (Isle of Man) Limited ('MTM') and www.suomotu.com.
- reference to Counsel's opinions (including those of David Milne QC, Philip Baker, Adrian Shipwright and Robert Argles) and extracts from some settled notes of conferences with Counsel;
- reference to E&Y London instructing E&Y IoM to withdraw from participation in the scheme, which was allegedly described as a "political hot potato";
- reference to alternative structures involving the use of Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs);
- Montpelier's claims of breach of confidence, breach of copyright, passing off and procuring breaches of contract;
- The counterclaim by Mr Jones and Mr Morris that Montpelier repudiated contractual arrangements.
As I've indicated in previous posts here, the existence of Counsel's opinion does not guarantee that a scheme will succeed. The ultimate decision in this regard will rarely be known with certainty until after it has been tested in the courts. And that often means a long wait.