HMRC Consultative Document - marketed tax avoidance schemes

[DonkeyRhubarb]

How can we get involved?

This is disgusting, bullying behaviour.

Watch this space.

We may come up with a letter that everyone, not just our members, can send.

We will probably also be looking to engage with professional bodies like the CIOT.

[turnover]

The most sinister part is the extended Proposal 1 on page 15.

This would give HMRC the power to serve immediate payment notices on anyone who has used a scheme registered under DOTAS.

DOTAS was introduced in 2004, so we are talking about schemes going back 10 years.

Hello DR,

This legislation is under consultation so there is still time to respond and provide comments? If this is the case what is the most effective way of doing so? Or is there not much point as it will be ignored.

The other point is the Human Rights angle - People will be in a position where as a result of this legislation they will be likely to be a) bankrupt b) unable to defend themselves as propsoed funds to fight are taken by HMRC

Would this be something that would be in their interest to fight?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Hello DR,

This legislation is under consultation so there is still time to respond and provide comments? If this is the case what is the most effective way of doing so? Or is there not much point as it will be ignored.

The other point is the Human Rights angle - People will be in a position where as a result of this legislation they will be likely to be a) bankrupt b) unable to defend themselves as propsoed funds to fight are taken by HMRC

Would this be something that would be in their interest to fight?

It is be hoped that the professional bodies like the CIOT will challenge the proposals.

However, we at NTRT will be consulting with our lobbying company to determine how best to respond.

Watch this space.

[varunksingh]

Very interesting and well written. I am still trying to decide whether to fight because I was playing by the rules at the time or just pay up and chalk it up to experience.

Very interesting indeed but I am almost sick of hearing about Boyle decision. If anyone is pay up because of Boyle decision
1) Boyle was not an EBT
2) Forex never existed

If someone, anyone has found how Boyle's decision should affect an EBT scheme, please let me know. Seems like my head is deep down in sand but the world has started to believe the Boyle's decision is for all EBTs.

Why is only Boyle's decisions being applied to all EBT even when it is not an EBT but Rangers case which was an EBT is not being applied to EBTs? Someone please ask HMRC and who so ever write these articles. Only because HMRC wants to cherry pick and make everyone believe as if we did something wrong by using an EBT.

[varunksingh]

I don't think this is going to happen!

Watch this space.

We may come up with a letter that everyone, not just our members, can send.

We will probably also be looking to engage with professional bodies like the CIOT.

Only one question: Which “substantially similar” case will HMRC use to send follower notices to all EBT users? Boyle? Which was not a EBT! will become “substantially similar” to an EBT? May be Lisa Keeble can answer this as well for us.

If HMRC is going this route they should change their name to “substantially similar” to Loan sharks

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Only one question: Which “substantially similar” case will HMRC use to send follower notices to all EBT users? Boyle? Which was not a EBT! will become “substantially similar” to an EBT? May be Lisa Keeble can answer this as well for us.

If HMRC is going this route they should change their name to “substantially similar” to Loan sharks

You need to read the consultation document, in particular Proposal 1 on page 15. This extends the "follower" regime.

If your scheme was registered with DOTAS then, under Proposal 1, they do not need to win a similar court case to issue payment notices.

[SantaClaus]

This may be an opportunity for EBT scheme users to form a coalition with NTRT members on this one issue.

Just a thought at present, but could gather momentum soon.

As DR says, watch this space.

[varunksingh]

You need to read the consultation document, in particular Proposal 1 on page 15. This extends the "follower" regime.

If your scheme was registered with DOTAS then, under Proposal 1, they do not need to win a similar court case to issue payment notices.

Thanks. Had not seen this one. Seems like one way or another HMRC wants the tax collected. They know EBTs might win in courts and are thus forcing contractors to pay.

[varunksingh]

May be all should individually also respond to consultation document. This is very unfair if it become Law.

[ramzanamin]

Thanks. Had not seen this one. Seems like one way or another HMRC wants the tax collected. They know EBTs might win in courts and are thus forcing contractors to pay.

Well if EBTs have a chance of winning in court why should we pay up without pointing out the flaws in HMRCS arguments? Ps Boyle has little or no relevance to Properly implemented EBTs and HMRC know that.