Loans from EBTs and other Trusts

[AtW]

the emphasis should be on pursuing the owed tax in a timely manner so that these things don't drag on for years.

Litigation can slow down process for many years, and at the end they argue that paying tax would lead to bankrupcies.

Also, asking to put up the money first would deal a big blow to all sort of schemes because many of them are just variety on the same theme, tax avoidance through schemes will become a lot less attractive if money would have to be deposited with HMRC for many years - very good move on part of HMRC.

[Archangel]

Is this the correct thread for this? (Montpelier scheme)

Tax avoiders face massive penalties after landmark legal case | Mail Online

[cojak]

Is this the correct thread for this? (Montpelier scheme)

Tax avoiders face massive penalties after landmark legal case | Mail Online

No, it is not THE Montpelier scheme affecting the BN66ers (I think), it was tax advice from Montpelier following the sale of a business.

[eek]

No, it is not THE Montpelier scheme affecting the BN66ers (I think), it was tax advice from Montpelier following the sale of a business.

There is a part that is significant though

In the past, those entering into avoidance schemes have only had to face the risk that the plans did not work and consequently having to pay the tax they had been trying to avoid. This made joining a tax scheme a one-way bet.
....
But the tribunal ruled that the pair should have checked that the plan (as they added a penalty).

which changes things from:-

no penalty fine, we know you trusted the "experts"

to,

penalty fine - you really should have got independent confirmation...

Sadly I feel that change is going to impact a lot of people using EBT and loan schemes....

[varunksingh]

eek

Apart from Boyle, Aberdeen Asset Management and Rangers, Do you know of any other EBT cases which HMRC has won/fighting/lost?

[eek]

eek

Apart from Boyle, Aberdeen Asset Management and Rangers, Do you know of any other EBT cases which HMRC has won/fighting/lost?

Sorry I can't be arsed to do your research for you to misrepresent again.

You may however want to look at the cases you are using as you are grossly misrepresenting the results (which is why you are annoying me so much) as they should read:-

Boyle -complete HMRC Win,
Aberdeen Asset Management complete HMRC Win,
Rangers partial HMRC Win on some points / cases (and those points appear to quite significant). However, it seems that the final part of the AAM case overrides the majority decision and is from a binding court so I wouldn't be holding out on Rangers eventually winning.

Then you are asking if I know other cases. Well the real problem is that the only information we see is from first and upper tax tribunals and it takes years upon years to get to that point. Boyle was regarding tax in 2002/3 and went to the tribunal last year (9 years later). So the information you want is just not available. There is the Goldman Sachs case but that was from the 1990's and only finalised in 2011 to show the true snail like speed these cases take

And as of this post I'll leave you to yourself. I think 3 posts showing that you don't actually know what you are talking about is enough for anyone...

[eek]

On the basis that I can't reply in the correct thread

Looking at the actual draft legislation, rather than the consultation doc I see:



So clearly it's wider than personal taxation, otherwise why all the other taxes?

Yes but its irrelevant. each example mentioned there is purely designed to ensure that HMRC receive payment of the full amount of tax due regardless of type (be it corporation tax, inheritance tax, individual tax and capital gains tax) no matter what contrived means was used to avoiding paying that tax .

There is absolutely, totally, utterly nothing there which would impact your typical contractor taking dividends as part of their remuneration no matter how you describe it and no matter which part of that documentation / legislation you look at.

[doodab]

It will be interesting if they use this to go after one of the big multinational transfer pricing operations like Google or Starbucks. They won't of course, but it would be interesting if they did.

[porrker]

This has been done before… They are the old Sunday Solutions mob and they have loads of experience at getting contractors in trouble with HMRC. They use a different structure but never the less caution is advised.

Name & Registered Office:
BREEZE WEALTH LTD
60 LOMBARD STREET
LONDON
ENGLAND
EC3V 9EA
Company No. 08036919




Status: Active
Date of Incorporation: 19/04/2012

Country of Origin: United Kingdom
Company Type: Private Limited Company
Nature of Business (SIC):
None Supplied
Accounting Reference Date: 30/04
Last Accounts Made Up To: (NO ACCOUNTS FILED)
Next Accounts Due: 19/01/2014
Last Return Made Up To:
Next Return Due: 17/05/2013
Previous Names:
No previous name information has been recorded over the last 20 years.
UK Establishment Details
There are no UK Establishments associated with this company.
Oversea Company Info
There are no Oversea Details associated with this company.


Their website says that they have loads of experience

[Zarkana]

I'll correct my previous statement as the case is due to be held in public between Jan and March Rangers EBT tax case HMRC appeal to be heard in public, judge rules | Glasgow & West | News | STV (I truely thought it had been held and we were just waiting for the verdict).

I'm not involved in any of these claims (I keep my accounts simple as I like to sleep at night) and others would say that I'm biased but you may want to read http://forums.contractoruk.com/hmrc-...ings-news.html. The bit were insiders feel that HMRC will win is based on ABERDEEN ASSET MANAGEMENT PLC v. THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY'S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS IN RESPECT OF A DECISION OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL (TAX AND CHANCERY CHAMBER), 23 October 2013, Lord Drummond Young+Lord Glennie+Lord President which is a binding result that impacts other cases.

I'm not involved in any of these claims (I keep my accounts simple as I like to sleep at night)


Really? Simple means that you are inside IR35... Are you??? If not you shouldn't sleep at night...