BN66 - Time to fight back!!!

[ASB]

I though Ramsay case was in the fifties?

Seems to be 1981. http://www.taxationweb.co.uk/articles/article.php?id=9

Also it has been held to apply to PAYE and NI avoidance schemes (one such was payment of bonuses into an offshore trust and then transferring the interest in that trust to the people the bonuses were for).

I think, however, it's not that easy to apply. Having read a bit more I think the transactions need to be circular in nature and I'm not sure that is the case with this scheme. Certainly Ramsay isn't a substitute for a general anti avoidance rule.

[malvolio]

Beat me to it - that's the same article I was going to refer to!

I can see why it may not apply though...

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Can't as in not allowed or can't as in don't know? And do they mean the specific case of Ramsay, concerning cyclical loans that goes back into the dark ages (OK, 1982 from memory), or the wider principle that HMRC can "look through" any arrangement that has no obvious business justification. You may be OK under the former but not necessarily the latter

Don't know.

However, it is pretty obvious that they wouldn't have introduced "Clause 55" in the Finance Bill if HMRC had been confident of winning this any other way.

After all, they were happy to take Arctic to the Special Commissioners, so why not us?

[malvolio]

After all, they were happy to take Arctic to the Special Commissioners, so why not us?

Arctic went to the House of Lords, ultimately, but that's what you need to worry about. Arctic was well over £500k legal fees to chase £7k in tax...

[BrilloPad]

Arctic went to the House of Lords, ultimately, but that's what you need to worry about. Arctic was well over £500k legal fees to chase £7k in tax...

7k for just that case. if they had won - how much would they have claimed? millions easily?

[malvolio]

Around £20m... Hardly significant. FBT by my rough worse case scenario brings in around £200m pa, that's a tiny percentage of what they've spent on Northern Rock, much less UK PLC.

It's not about money, it's about spite, misunderstanding and envy.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Arctic went to the House of Lords, ultimately, but that's what you need to worry about. Arctic was well over £500k legal fees to chase £7k in tax...

If you are suggesting that MTM won't be prepared to stump up the cash to fight it all the way then you are mistaken.

Aside from protecting their (international) reputation in tax planning and securing future revenue streams, I have been informed that they stand to collect around £2 Million in loan repayments if they win. This figure sounds about right because I personally would owe them £12k if the outcome is successful, and there are 2-300 other contractors in the same position.

Money for legal fees is not an issue in this case.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

This figure sounds about right because I personally would owe them £12k if the outcome is successful, and there are 2-300 other contractors in the same position.


PS. and I'm sure they will have no problem collecting the loan repayments if they win, as everyone will pay this gladly. Personally I'd be happy to deliver my cheque for £12k to the IoM by hand!

[malvolio]

Well whoop-di-do for you. All I'm saying is that the fight you have is not about money. And even if you win, there will be legislation in the next budget to cancel it out.

[BrilloPad]

Around £20m... Hardly significant. FBT by my rough worse case scenario brings in around £200m pa, that's a tiny percentage of what they've spent on Northern Rock, much less UK PLC.

It's not about money, it's about spite, misunderstanding and envy.

I think we can all agree on that. Except Hector