• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

HMRC Consultative Document - marketed tax avoidance schemes

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #21
    Accelerated Payment Notices

    There have been two potentially significant announcements made by Government in the past week or so, which are highly likely to affect those on this forum.

    The Finance Bill 2014 will contain legislation to significantly change the economic landscape for those participating in tax planning arrangements. Both seek to shift the financial burden of protracted enquiries, and potentially litigation, from Government to taxpayers.

    The proposals regarding ‘failure notices’ were first released last August in a document called 'Raising the stakes on tax avoidance'. The draft legislation has now been published along with further proposals and is open for comment.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/upload..._avoidance.pdf

    The relevant parts of the consultation document are contained at pages 35 to 45.

    Under the proposals for ‘failure notices’ taxpayers who have used an avoidance scheme similar to one that a court or tribunal has already overruled will also have to pay the amount HMRC says they owe. When issuing a ‘failure notice’ HMRC would, at the same time, issue a payment notice giving 90 days to pay the disputed tax. Late payment penalties of up to 15 per cent will be imposed in three successive stages for delays in paying the tax under dispute.

    But the question of whether HMRC might issue ‘failure notices’ to taxpayers on this forum following Boyle will be a moot question if further proposals announced last Friday become law.

    In a further consultation document (https://www.gov.uk/government/upload..._avoidance.pdf - see page 15 onwards) the Government announced plans to extend the ‘failure notice’ measure to all cases involving schemes disclosed, or that should have been disclosed, under the DOTAS (Disclosure of Tax Avoidance Schemes) regime.

    Under these proposals, payment of the disputed tax in respect of ongoing enquiries would be required from anyone who has taken part in a DOTAS scheme, or one that should have been disclosed under DOTAS. This would apply in relation both to existing cases, which have not yet been settled, and to new cases.

    This proposal is subject to consultation and there is therefore an opportunity for those on this forum to have your say. The rules will not change if you simply vent your spleen on here. The email address to which representations should be sent is included within each consultation document. You can influence these rules only if you use them.

    I personally recommend that any representations focus upon the economic consequences of unexpectedly having to pay tax under dispute before the question of liability has been determined by the Courts rather than any argument about the validity of EBT loan planning: HMRC have long publicised their view of EBTs and that isn't going to change.

    Comment


      #22
      Excellent post Saleos.

      Although I think you may have meant to say 'follower notices' rather than 'failure notices'.

      I have already responded to the consultation document. Others may decide to do likewise.

      The email address is:
      aag.consultation AT hmrc.gsi.gov.uk

      https://www.gov.uk/government/upload..._avoidance.pdf

      Comment


        #23
        Dear DR

        Is there an universal well thought through letter which can all use to oppose this basic infringement to one's human rights?

        I have left my feedback. however, I am not certain if it adds any meat to the opposition.

        thanks in advance

        Comment


          #24
          Is it possible for draft / template to respond lodge objection?

          Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View Post
          Excellent post Saleos.

          Although I think you may have meant to say 'follower notices' rather than 'failure notices'.

          I have already responded to the consultation document. Others may decide to do likewise.

          The email address is:
          aag.consultation AT hmrc.gsi.gov.uk

          https://www.gov.uk/government/upload..._avoidance.pdf
          Is it possible for draft / template to respond lodge objection?

          Comment


            #25
            Scheme Provider v Individual

            Like all of you guys, I'm seriously concerned about this recent legislation which stands to bankrupt me.

            What also concerns me is the complete lack of responsibility by the providers of these EBT schemes who on the most part, have simply closed the shutters and started again somewhere else with absolutely no hint of support for the 1000's they have left out in the cold. I (like many others), used, and indeed paid to use, an EBT scheme in good faith as an efficient tax vehicle which claimed no risk / "100% compliance" with tax laws and legislation. You may argue that the legislation is "retrospective" but surely these companies must be held to account for their actions? After all, it was not us that invented or sold these schemes.

            In my particular case, the EBT provider is still in existence (at the moment anyway and is trading with a different service) but i'd be particularly interested in anyone else who has raised this subject with their provider. Was there any hint of financial support in this type of situation? Surely their Professional Indemnity policy could cover this type of thing???

            Comment


              #26
              Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View Post
              Excellent post Saleos.

              Although I think you may have meant to say 'follower notices' rather than 'failure notices'.

              I have already responded to the consultation document. Others may decide to do likewise.

              The email address is:
              aag.consultation AT hmrc.gsi.gov.uk

              https://www.gov.uk/government/upload..._avoidance.pdf
              The text of the Consultation document talks of "Follower Notice" but curiously the draft legislation uses the term "Failure Notice". A Freudian slip perhaps??

              Comment


                #27
                Responding to the consultation

                I have discussed it with our lobbying company, who have previous experience of consultations, and they say it's a waste of time using template letters as they will all be treated as one response.

                If you want to have your say then you need to write your own response.

                Comment


                  #28
                  Couldn't agree more. Everyone will have different views on this (or perhaps not!). Better to put those into your own words.

                  I'd caution though that sympathy is likely to be scant for tax avoiders (sorry to be so blunt but that is what Government considers you) so a sympathy plea won't cut it.

                  My own view is that only a clear explanation of the economic impact of being told to find the disputed sum unexpectedly early, at 90 days notice, on jobs; spending, work, choice of residence etc. is likely to have any impact at all. And even then I find it difficult to be optimistic with the Government flatly rejecting the strong representations made by the vast majority that failure notices (to use the term used in the draft legislation rather than that in the accompanying documents) should be issued only after a finding of at least the Upper Tribunal. But if people simply sit back and accept this there is no possibility of change.

                  Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View Post
                  I have discussed it with our lobbying company, who have previous experience of consultations, and they say it's a waste of time using template letters as they will all be treated as one response.

                  If you want to have your say then you need to write your own response.

                  Comment


                    #29
                    Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View Post
                    The document refers to 65,000 open cases. Given that DOTAS has been around 10 years, the proposals will affect a large proportion of these 65,000.

                    Many of these cases will be ones where HMRC knows full well that they have little prospect of winning in court.

                    This is draconian in the extreme, and we in NTRT will be redirecting some of our lobbying effort at it.
                    And let's not forget to mention the Government sometimes and not just HMRC. Whilst we generally accept they are one and the same thing in these matters it's worth giving special mention to our Machiavellian political class , led in this regard by Mr Gauke who it would seem is incapable of segregating his moral position from his 'legal' one but is more that happy to educate everyone else how they should conduct their affairs.

                    It's good to know it's morally wrong to pay the tradesman cash but stamp duty claims on much needed second homes is OK!

                    Comment


                      #30
                      There was a debate on this thread last night which I have moved to http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...trusts-17.html

                      If you want to continue the debate, do it there. Any further debate here will be removed and sanctions may be deployed.
                      "I can put any old tat in my sig, put quotes around it and attribute to someone of whom I've heard, to make it sound true."
                      - Voltaire/Benjamin Franklin/Anne Frank...

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X