APNs - notifiable under DOTAS

[DonkeyRhubarb]

The main grounds for HMRC issuing an APN is that a scheme was notifiable.

Don't assume that just because a promoter notified the scheme, and HMRC issued a scheme reference number (SRN), that the scheme was in fact notifiable. It may seem like a subtle distinction but HMRC are now having to withdraw 2000 Montpelier APNs because of this. We've now come across another case of this.

Some promoters probably notified to avoid any risk of the company being hit with penalties for non-compliance. Others, it seems, just didn't understand the rules. The DOTAS rules are complex, and open to interpretation, and even HMRC don't seem to fully understand them.

The likelihood of a scheme being notifiable also depends on the date when it was first made available for implementation. This determines which (if any) of the DOTAS rules apply. NB: this is not when you first used a scheme but when it was first made available to anyone.

If you think your scheme may not have been notifiable, seek professional advice.

EDIT: I decided to remove some of the technical details, above, just in case this was any benefit to HMRC.

[regron]

Thanks for this DR. I really do hope other schemes are successful, whether I was in them or not ! It is about time the tide turned a little !!!

[horrada]

I like to know if HMRC are actually refunding the monies for the APNs that are now deemed non-notifiable under dotas or keeping hold of.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I like to know if HMRC are actually refunding the monies for the APNs that are now deemed non-notifiable under dotas or keeping hold of.

They are refunding.

Although, if you paid using a CTD, they can't reinstate the original CTD. The only way to preserve the interest protection is to leave the money with HMRC as a payment on account.

[WalterWhite]

The main grounds for HMRC issuing an APN is that a scheme was notifiable.

Don't assume that just because a promoter notified the scheme, and HMRC issued a scheme reference number (SRN), that the scheme was in fact notifiable. It may seem like a subtle distinction but HMRC are now having to withdraw 2000 Montpelier APNs because of this. We've now come across another case of this.

Some promoters probably notified to avoid any risk of the company being hit with penalties for non-compliance. Others, it seems, just didn't understand the rules. The DOTAS rules are complex, and open to interpretation, and even HMRC don't seem to fully understand them.

The likelihood of a scheme being notifiable also depends on the date when it was first made available for implementation. This determines which (if any) of the DOTAS rules apply. NB: this is not when you first used a scheme but when it was first made available to anyone.

If you think your scheme may not have been notifiable, seek professional advice.

EDIT: I decided to remove some of the technical details, above, just in case this was any benefit to HMRC.

So was your scheme DOTAS registered?

I assumed as they'd been withdrawn it wasn't but HMRC chanced their arm in issuing the APN's?

[Dylan]

So was your scheme DOTAS registered?

I assumed as they'd been withdrawn it wasn't but HMRC chanced their arm in issuing the APN's?

Notified is different from notifiable. IE you could notify of a scheme to be on the safe side even though it might not have actually been required by law. My understanding anyway.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

So was your scheme DOTAS registered?

I assumed as they'd been withdrawn it wasn't but HMRC chanced their arm in issuing the APN's?

Yes, the Montpelier scheme was DOTAS registered (notified). HMRC assigned it a scheme reference number, which users put on their tax returns.

However, as I said, this doesn't mean it was notifiable, and HMRC have now accepted that it wasn't.

[WalterWhite]

Yes, the Montpelier scheme was DOTAS registered (notified). HMRC assigned it a scheme reference number, which users put on their tax returns.

However, as I said, this doesn't mean it was notifiable, and HMRC have now accepted that it wasn't.

Very interesting.

Under what grounds was it appealed? Can this help users of EBT's and other schemes?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Under what grounds was it appealed? Can this help users of EBT's and other schemes?

The grounds, in the Letters of Representation, were that it was not a notifiable arrangement.

Unfortunately, each scheme would need to be examined on a case by case basis because it depends on various factors, especially when it was first made available for implementation.

[ASB]

What is the impact of a withdrawn APN?

Obviously you don't have to pay the APN; though I note the comments on CTD which were used to pay an APN - it seems wholly unreasonable to lose the protection afforded by a CTD if it were used to pay an APN which shouldn't have been issued but I suppose that is a different issue.

In terms of the dispute what impact (if any) does it have? I guess it means that in order to get any money then HMRC are actually going to have to get a scheme in front of an FTT?