BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[sal626]

OK maybe challenged was the wrong word , they have sent out probing letters , so enquiries would be a better term

The scheme provider is apparently helping the HMRC with their enquiries , however the tax advisors employed by the scheme provider dont think there is a strong case for the scheme holding up ,especially now the scheme provider converted the loans into a weak foreign and renderred the loans worthless ?!

OK, if the tax advisors are saying the scheme may not hold up, then that presents a different scenario.

I would still advise to contact the tex advisors directly (if possible) and ask what the risk to you personally may be.
It may be the case that HMRC find liability is with the provider and not you....
For example, the scheme "as declared" may be legal and hold up, but how it has been operated and put in practise is not legal. In other words, what the provider said they would do might be legal, but then providers have done something different?

The more info you get, the better informed you will be to make a decision...

[AlbionRovers]

In terms of writing to MPs, is it fair to say that most labour replies have been dismissive and most non-labour ones have been the opposite?

Has anyone had a reply from a labour MP which reads in any way favourably for us?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Response to first FOI Request

(A big thanks to a friend for obtaining this.)

NB. The request was in respect of all users of the DTA scheme, not just Montpelier. The figures should include deGraaf, Steed and property developers.

Request:

This request relates to tax planning schemes targeted by Section 58, Finance Act2008. HMRC have stated publicly that they first became aware of such schemes in 2001. Can HMRC supply figures for the number of Section 9a TMA 1970 Notices they issued, in relation to the schemes, for each of the following tax years: 2001/2, 2002/3, 2003/4, 2004/5 and 2005/6. Can HMRC also supply information they hold to explain why they took no action on most schemes and scheme users between 2001 and 2007.

HMRC's Response:

In relation to these schemes, the number of Section 9a TMA notices issued, which are currently recorded on the relevant HMRC databases, are set out below:
Year
2001/02 - 229
2002/03 - 428
2003/04 - 759
2004/05 - 838
2005/06 - 935

As regards the second part of your request, HMRC does not hold any information, relating to “why they took no action on most schemes and scheme users.“ As the above table demonstrates, HMRC was taking action in respect of these schemes.

It is typical of HMRC to claim that merely issuing enquiry notices counts as "taking action".

Nevertheless, these numbers demonstrate that, contrary to what Jane Kennedy told the Treasury Committee, the rate of growth of the scheme was actually slowing in the latter years.

The next FOI request we are awating a response on concerns deals and concessions HMRC made to other users.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

In terms of writing to MPs, is it fair to say that most labour replies have been dismissive and most non-labour ones have been the opposite?

Has anyone had a reply from a labour MP which reads in any way favourably for us?

Generally speaking, yes.

The best we can achieve with Labour MPs is to force them to forward our questions on to the Treasury. However, some will do anything to try and avoid this, even when their constituent is facing ruin.

They are either cowards or they know this has got a bad smell about it.

[lilo]

Reply from David Gauke

I received a reply from David Gauke yesterday. It said "Many thanks for your recent letter regarding Section 58 of last years budget. I have had many letters in a similar vein and I can confirm that I have already contacted HM Treasury and I will contact you again as soon as I receive a response."

There is a hand written postscript saying that he has enclosed a copy of the debate on the clause in which he spoke.

[lilo]

viewing the status of tax returns

I've seen posts from people saying they are checking the status of their returns online. I have been online on the SA bit of HMRC website but it doesn't tell me much. I've lodged two appeals to CNs but haven't had the appeals acknowledged. I was hoping to be able to tell what was going on from their website. Am I in the right area of their website??

[dezze]

OK maybe challenged was the wrong word , they have sent out probing letters , so enquiries would be a better term

The scheme provider is apparently helping the HMRC with their enquiries , however the tax advisors employed by the scheme provider dont think there is a strong case for the scheme holding up ,especially now the scheme provider converted the loans into a weak foreign and renderred the loans worthless ?!

Was this the TRM scheme? - I think someone mentioned that the loans were 'transferred' to another company and they converted the loan into a fast depreciating currency. There was another comment (made a fair while ago) that indicated that this practise was stopped a number of years ago.

I may be talking total rubbish of course. Ever since hitting 40 I can't remember sod all.

[poppy01]

Nevertheless, these numbers demonstrate that, contrary to what Jane Kennedy told the Treasury Committee, the rate of growth of the scheme was actually slowing in the latter years.

so amongst all the evasion and half-truth, she actually did tell an out and out lie to the treasury committee, this information should be included in the next wave of letters.

oh and - not being funny but this is the bn66 thread

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Keep voting in the liability Poll:

http://forums.contractoruk.com/783020-post10.html

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Response to 2nd FOI Request

Not very helpful, although it does give us the scale of the Suo Motu settlement - 148 people in March 2003.

Request:

It is known that some taxpayers who used the scheme had their enquiries closed by HMRC and gained a tax advantage. Can HMRC provide a report on this, including:
(1) the number of users who benefited from this tax advantage;
(2) the number of enquiries that were closed where there was no additional tax demanded;
(3) a breakdown of the financial value to the users of this tax advantage;
(4) the total cost to the Exchequer of providing this tax advantage.”

HMRC Response:

I am writing to advise you that following a search of our paper and electronic records, I have established that HMRC does not hold the information you requested. However, I can inform you that 148 participants of the scheme had their cases settled in March 2003.