BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[BrilloPad]

Careful when you trip-trap over the bridge. You can never be sure who is underneath.

[BlasterBates]

The Arctic Sytems was not a management co, it was not offshore and didn´t involve loans fictitious or otherwise. If my accountant had proposed it to me, I would have personally probably have gone ahead, because in my knowledge of tax avoidance, I would say that is tax avoidance as I understand it.

I wouldn´t touch a management co. with a barge pole, many of whom rely not on a loophole, but simply the fact that the important info. required to bust it lie outside the jurisdiction of the relevant tax authority, as demonstrated when a longstanding scheme was busted when the German authorities were allowed into Switzerland to raid a man. co., which incidentally is now in Cyprus and still recruiting contractors.

I´m open to tax avoidance, and if I come across a proposal that I deem carrying an acceptable risk I will indeed persue it, and indeed in Luxembourg I did, but the savings weren´t particularly spectacular. But the schemes many British based organisations are offering are quite frankly hair raising.

I really don´t think you can compare Arctic Systems arrangement to an offshore loans scheme.

[Toocan]

The Arctic Sytems was not a management co, it was not offshore and didn´t involve loans fictitious or otherwise. If my accountant had proposed it to me, I would have personally probably have gone ahead, because in my knowledge of tax avoidance, I would say that is tax avoidance as I understand it.

I wouldn´t touch a management co. with a barge pole, many of whom rely not on a loophole, but simply the fact that the important info. required to bust it lie outside the jurisdiction of the relevant tax authority, as demonstrated when a longstanding scheme was busted when the German authorities were allowed into Switzerland to raid a man. co., which incidentally is now in Cyprus and still recruiting contractors.

I´m open to tax avoidance, and if I come across a proposal that I deem carrying an acceptable risk I will indeed persue it, and indeed in Luxembourg I did, but the savings weren´t particularly spectacular. But the schemes many British based organisations are offering are quite frankly hair raising.

I really don´t think you can compare Arctic Systems arrangement to an offshore loans scheme.

This thread is about BN66 - s.58 FA 2008 - it is not about what you call "a management co" and it is not a “loan based scheme”.

In the Arctic systems case HMRC tried to reinterpret a piece of law to suit their purposes – they failed. They are trying to do the same thing with the scheme being discussed on this thread. The difference is that they have tried to usurp the due legal process by using retrospective legislation.

I’m not sure if it is generally understood just what HMRC are trying to get away with in section 58. Even the civil servants do not appear to appreciate that this technique, if successful, could be used to take their “unfair” gold standard final salary pensions away from them. Let’s face it, that would be vote winner. It really is a genie in a bottle situation. Pop!

[SantaClaus]

You may well be wasting your breath. BB is a first class twunt who makes Mal look normal. He is better know on these forums for posting doom threads.

Agree Brillo. From reading BB's postings, it's obvious he doesnt understand the full workings of various schemes and is making general assumptions.

[SantaClaus]

.....I’m not sure if it is generally understood just what HMRC are trying to get away with in section 58. Even the civil servants do not appear to appreciate that this technique, if successful, could be used to take their “unfair” gold standard final salary pensions away from them. Let’s face it, that would be vote winner. It really is a genie in a bottle situation. Pop!

I don't think even the govt. understand Section 58.
For everyone's info, just had my 2nd letter back from Stephen Timms. It was the same old tulip and more or less a copy of the first letter rephrased.

He still talks about "clarifying" the 1987 legislation and uses emotive terms like the scheme was "abusive". Nothing new there then!

My MP Jeremy Corbyn, nice chap though he is, admitted in his letter that section 58 was a "somewhat specialised area". In other words, he doesnt understand Timms reply.

My next step are various requests I have made under the Data Protection Act from the Inland Revenue. I will keep you all posted.

[BlasterBates]

Agree Brillo. From reading BB's postings, it's obvious he doesnt understand the full workings of various schemes and is making general assumptions.

Can you explain to me why you don´t pay UK tax? I would be interested.

Here is the DTA with regard to professional services:

DT10806 - DT: Jersey: double taxation agreement, Article 7: Income from personal (including professional) services
An individual who is a resident of the United Kingdom shall be exempt from Jersey tax on profits or remuneration in respect of personal (including professional) services performed within Jersey in any year of assessment if-
he is present within Jersey for a period or periods not exceeding in the aggregate 183 days during that year, and
the services are performed for or on behalf of a person resident in the United Kingdom, and
the profits or remuneration are subject to United Kingdom tax.
An individual who is a resident of Jersey shall be exempt from United Kingdom tax on profits or remuneration in respect of personal (including professional) services performed within the United Kingdom in any year of assessment if-
he is present within the United Kingdom for a period or periods not exceeding in the aggregate 183 days during that year, and
the services are performed for or on behalf of a person resident in Jersey and (c) the profits or remuneration are subject to Jersey tax.
The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to the profits or remuneration of public entertainers such as stage, motion picture or radio artists, musicians and athletes.

Now this isn´t BN66 this is the Jersey-DTA that goes back to 1987.

My understanding would be that if you want to avoid tax you simply need to demonstrate that you spent less than 183 days in the UK in the year in question.

Was the income in question that you´re disputing not from professional services?

What income was it?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

FOI - the only way forward

For everyone's info, just had my 2nd letter back from Stephen Timms. It was the same old tulip and more or less a copy of the first letter rephrased.

He still talks about "clarifying" the 1987 legislation and uses emotive terms like the scheme was "abusive". Nothing new there then!

It is becoming clear to me that the only way to get the Treasury to answer a question is through FOI.

There have been some interesting ones submitted recently

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/hm_treasury

Info from HMRC can be requested in the same way:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/hmrc

Why not have some fun!

[Toocan]

Can you explain to me why you don´t pay UK tax? I would be interested.

Here is the DTA with regard to professional services:

Now this isn´t BN66 this is the Jersey-DTA that goes back to 1987.

My understanding would be that if you want to avoid tax you simply need to demonstrate that you spent less than 183 days in the UK in the year in question.

Was the income in question that you´re disputing not from professional services?

What income was it?

I think you misunderstand - in law an "individual" can be a person, a company, and others - the "individual" is a legal entity.

[SantaClaus]

Can you explain to me why you don´t pay UK tax? I would be interested.

Here is the DTA with regard to professional services:




Now this isn´t BN66 this is the Jersey-DTA that goes back to 1987.

My understanding would be that if you want to avoid tax you simply need to demonstrate that you spent less than 183 days in the UK in the year in question.

Was the income in question that you´re disputing not from professional services?

What income was it?

I would have to explain to you how the scheme works and as I signed a non-disclousure agreement, I am not prepared to do so.

Please dont argue over something you dont understand.

[SantaClaus]

It is becoming clear to me that the only way to get the Treasury to answer a question is through FOI.

There have been some interesting ones submitted recently

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/hm_treasury

Info from HMRC can be requested in the same way:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/hmrc

Why not have some fun!

Here's something else I would like to suggest to everyone.

For those with closure notices who think they should'nt have received one because you and Montpelier didnt receive an enquiry letter within the time limit, can I suggest the following (which I have already done):

Write to your local tax office and ask for the following under the data protection act. They have 40 days to comply:

1. A copy of the alledged enquiry letter.
2. Proof of posting of the original enquiry letter.
3. All records, electronic records, emails, etc. that they hold on you.
4. Copies of written conversation/emails regarding the enquiry letter.

When writing the letter, dont accuse HMRC of lying, just state the information you would like to receive. There's no need to provide a reason. Remember to state that you want the information under the Data Protection Act and they have 40 days to comply. You may have to pay a fee but it will be worth it!

My 40 days have ellapsed, so I have sent a reminder to HMRC.
I got a letter back from "Specialist Investigations" stating they have "overwhelming evidence" they sent the letter. Sounds like they are a bit worried, so I have requested the "overwhelming evidence" too

Next step is a letter to the Information Commisioner as HMRC have broken the law by not sending me the information within the legal time limit.

Remember that the DPA act is for requesting information about yourself, the FOI is for requesting general information.

Lets start bombarding them with requests just as they bombard us with "newsletters". And as DR says, we can have a bit of fun too!