BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[seadog]

property developers

Hi ab74, and thanks for de-lurking.

If your wife is doing some digging, it's worth noting that at least two of the Big 4, KPMG & PwC, are rumoured to have sold the same scheme to large property developers. It would be interesting to know what's happening with them.

Cheers
DR

I spoke to a partner at KPMG who advised me that they did advised a large number of property developers about the DTA loophole but set up the scheme to use independant trustees and administrators in IOM & Jersey.

Consequently they have no responsibility to look after clients who get caught up in the BN66 retrospective issue and are leaving then to deal with their own accountants and lawyers to make appeals etc.

I will be making more attempts to try and locate other property developers caught up in this matter.

[AlbionRovers]

A colleague received his distraint letter at the weekend.
His appeal was in on time and has been acknowledged in the proper way.

Any advice on what to do next? Thanks.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

A colleague received his distraint letter at the weekend.
His appeal was in on time and has been acknowledged in the proper way.

Any advice on what to do next? Thanks.

Get him to contact MP immediately. They will get in touch with his tax office directly and get the dogs called off.

This is starting to get ridiculous.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I spoke to a partner at KPMG who advised me that they did advised a large number of property developers about the DTA loophole but set up the scheme to use independant trustees and administrators in IOM & Jersey.

Consequently they have no responsibility to look after clients who get caught up in the BN66 retrospective issue and are leaving then to deal with their own accountants and lawyers to make appeals etc.

I will be making more attempts to try and locate other property developers caught up in this matter.

Good work seadog. I'm sure there is activity going on behind the scenes, and many more JR applications may be in the pipeline.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Press Coverage

I have been taking more of an interest in High Court cases recently, and I've noticed a lot do get reported, particularly on slow news days. There were 2 on Channel 4 News last week, one to do with crop spraying.

I'm sure a case like this which involves a challenge to Govt legislation will get coverage but I can't see us being portrayed favourably. The Govt and HMRC will get their spin machine working overtime on this.

I hope MP have got the PR angle covered as well as the legal aspects.

[ASB]

Some of the better EBT loan schemes grant the loan out-with the employment – ie it is not a loan from an EBT and so side steps some of the legislation. I am aware of one scheme that is so confident that they make no declaration of the loan on the tax return. The justification for this is that it is not a benefit of employment. I checked this out and it does appear to be correct, however I still didn’t like the smell of it.

But there are some significant potential pitfalls here. If it should have been declared then one is potentially in very serious trouble. If it is an avoidance scheme then it should be registered, also since it is offshore then it is the user of the scheme who must ensure they register and notify. Under some now swinging penalties.

I’ve just realised that if the loan was written off after death then it couldn’t be charged to employment taxes as you can’t “earn” income when your dead! (or can you )

I'm pretty sure you can. Your estate becomes a person for tax purposes until the estate is settled. Though the question of NI arises. I imagine that there is certain planning that can be done then anyway which may help.

Looking at loan based schemes from the other end, I think it might be that HMRC could only tax them by introducing a “loan tax”.

Not all all. If they fail current law then this can be back charged to 2004 (when avoidance scheme registration became needed). Ditto if they fail something that is introduced to counter them. [Again this needs testing. It's not strictly retrospective in that the announcement was made before the event, but I imagine the first time this legislation is used there will be a bit of a fuss].

[PlaneSailing]

Get him to contact MP immediately. They will get in touch with his tax office directly and get the dogs called off.

This is starting to get ridiculous.

I'm with Brillo on this. If Hector sends one of these notices, or worse
the heavies round, I will be mighty upset.

Reading their complaints procedure, and speaking to friends who know
about the Civil Service, this sort of 'mistake' should be reported to the
Parliamentary Ombudsmen. Apparently Hector hates having these boys
sticking their noses in.

[dezze]

If they fail current law then this can be back charged to 2004 (when avoidance scheme registration became needed).

Is this December 2004?

[SantaClaus]

I have been taking more of an interest in High Court cases recently, and I've noticed a lot do get reported, particularly on slow news days. There were 2 on Channel 4 News last week, one to do with crop spraying.

I'm sure a case like this which involves a challenge to Govt legislation will get coverage but I can't see us being portrayed favourably. The Govt and HMRC will get their spin machine working overtime on this.

I hope MP have got the PR angle covered as well as the legal aspects.

When the JR comes around, I dont think it will matter what the public thinks, unless public opinion can influence the judge.

If we win the case, it will be a major embarrasment for the govt. and there is no way their spin machine can disguise that.

Hopefully it will come at a time when Gordon Brown is in even deeper sh!t with the economy and the public will be against him anyway.

[ASB]

Is this December 2004?

I'm unsure. I can't find a simple reference. It is not explicit in the registration guidance (which was changed in 2006 anyway to bring NI into the scope of the disclosure regime). If memory serves the announcement was made in December '04 and it may apply from then or the beginning of that financial year. Te be fair the announcement didn't say "would backdate application" but "could backdate".

Typical bit of woolliness really.