Political motivation for tax persecution

[jbryce]

My personal view on this is (and it is just my view) running away and trying to dodge is digging your grave yourself. Most of us are highly skilled and should own up and pay what is due.

I joined a scheme thinking it is more legal than limited company - was new in the county. No cash component and all declared in return and HMRC not saying a word for year after year cemented my view.

Now I will pay up what government will ask but will go to the courts to ensure it is legally due. Until now I cannot see a court decision telling me a loan based contractor scheme was illegal in any way and thus I will fight through the courts. On top of that HMRC officials on settlement offer help line lying to me face and completely broken my trust in them - thus I don't believe a word they are saying. Fortunately promoters were good and are organising all this.

Running away from government in western world will be very difficult. And migrating my family to Middle East or back to Asia does not sound like a good decision to me. Neither I want to be away from my family for long period.

There's no point in running, but maybe some point in fighting. I'm moving from settling to getting the APN, negotiating TTP and then applying for an FTT.

[StrengthInNumbers]

Jbryce exactly - 100% agree

[Zero Liability]

Agree with the OP, there is nothing "moral" (in a way that we would recognise the word) or economically sensible about this and even the finances behind it are shoddy. It's all about the fact that successive governments have overspent, have failed to balance the books and now seek to foist the costs of this onto people who don't have significant political representation, and then have the nerve to inject morally charged language in it as well, painting those they target as "parasites", missing the irony involved given that they are purely funded by taxes. They are trying it on with the banks and MNCs, now, but the banks are an even easier target and have sufficient political connections to rebound later on, and MNCs possess very formidable legal and accounting teams who will probably run circles around HMRC; plus, they contribute immensely to the economy by doing business here. As do contractors, but without the clout of MNCs and the government's fear of chasing those away. Never used one of these schemes but I can sympathise with people who did, given the level of deception to which the government has resorted.

[jbryce]

Busy bees in HMRC

Agree with the OP, there is nothing "moral" (in a way that we would recognise the word) or economically sensible about this and even the finances behind it are shoddy. It's all about the fact that successive governments have overspent, have failed to balance the books and now seek to foist the costs of this onto people who don't have significant political representation, and then have the nerve to inject morally charged language in it as well, painting those they target as "parasites", missing the irony involved given that they are purely funded by taxes. They are trying it on with the banks and MNCs, now, but the banks are an even easier target and have sufficient political connections to rebound later on, and MNCs possess very formidable legal and accounting teams who will probably run circles around HMRC; plus, they contribute immensely to the economy by doing business here. As do contractors, but without the clout of MNCs and the government's fear of chasing those away. Never used one of these schemes but I can sympathise with people who did, given the level of deception to which the government has resorted.

I had reached the point of agreeing an amount and deciding to settle. My accountant had initially advised me to and it seemed like a way of getting some peace and a bit of relief from the feeling that I was a scum tax avoider.
However. The scheme suppliers and HMRC just want this to go away - as do I. Well tough.

So my accountant mused that if I accept an APN, HMRC would not be able to apply NICs or penalties - only an FTT could do that and an FTT would be unlikely to rule in favour of NICs. Penalties may be difficult to apply and finally an FTT would not be able to take into account my decline of the settlement offer as it was made without prejudice by HMRC, and therefore can't be viewed as non cooperation.

So his thinking now is wait for and negotiate TTP for the APN, let the case proceed to FTT. If 1/3 of people do this, then that's 20,000 cases in the backlog. It'll take a pretty good scrum master to get through that. Further HMRC will win some, but they will lose some too and their 80% number may be hit.
I can't pay the APN in a one-er so I'll have to negotiate TTP - say there are 10,000 doing that - then there are those who will need to be chased through the bankruptcy courts - say 5,000.

They're going to be busy.

[StrengthInNumbers]

I don't know about other schemes but have read a lot in EBT based loan scheme. That's IF properly implemented, HMRC does not have a bit chance in court.
1) loans are income - they have lost all cases until now sempra, UBS, deutche, dextra and rangers (twice)
2) ToAA should not apply to trade income.
3) if EBT is not avoidance in UK, how can it be avoidance in IoM? And if no avoidance, why and how does ToAA applies? It does not
4) awaiting Fisher UTT date to be allocated.
5) other defences against ToAA exist.

No doubt HMRC wants this to go away. If the first couple scheme wins it will become easier even for individuals to go to courts by them selves. HMRC can do now what they want but once things reach courts it will be a different situation.

[Zero Liability]

So his thinking now is wait for and negotiate TTP for the APN, let the case proceed to FTT. If 1/3 of people do this, then that's 20,000 cases in the backlog. It'll take a pretty good scrum master to get through that. Further HMRC will win some, but they will lose some too and their 80% number may be hit.
I can't pay the APN in a one-er so I'll have to negotiate TTP - say there are 10,000 doing that - then there are those who will need to be chased through the bankruptcy courts - say 5,000.

They're going to be busy.

Indeed, especially when coupled with the new proposed tax treatment of companies like Google added onto this, plus their shrinking budget and increasingly disgruntled staff, and the agency reporting requirements that may come in from July 2015, I can see them stretched beyond all limits.

[BrilloPad]

(A) The Government and HMRC may find that alienating 40,000+ intelligent, hard-working, honest voters (plus the employees of 10,000+ companies under threat) will have serious legal and political consequences both next May and beyond, and

The government control the courts. They can do what they want.

Those 40,000 were Tory voters anyway. Hanging out those 40,000 to dry might persuade a million or 2 C1/C2 voters(who actually matter) to vote for them.

[StrengthInNumbers]

I don't think government controls the courts - at least until now though parliament is try to reduce court powers.

[SueEllen]

I don't think government controls the courts - at least until now though parliament is try to reduce court powers.

The government doesn't control the court though the people in government and judges often know each other quite well....

[StrengthInNumbers]

Conspiracy is in everything, I believe in courts. Government ha lost a many times.