I think they wanted APN as the final nail to destroy schemes going forward. The retrospective bit was a (un)welcome surprise for HMRC which I'm not sure they 100% wanted but will be happy to use if they find a way to do so....
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Loans from EBTs and other Trusts
Collapse
X
Collapse
-
-
Originally posted by eek View PostI think they wanted APN as the final nail to destroy schemes going forward. The retrospective bit was a (un)welcome surprise for HMRC which I'm not sure they 100% wanted but will be happy to use if they find a way to do so....Comment
-
Originally posted by eek View PostI think they wanted APN as the final nail to destroy schemes going forward. The retrospective bit was a (un)welcome surprise for HMRC which I'm not sure they 100% wanted but will be happy to use if they find a way to do so....
What is worrying is that HMRC appear to have no policy as to how hard they will pursue payment and whether they care about making 10's, 100's, 1,000's bankrupt.Comment
-
Originally posted by Rob79 View PostWhat is worrying is that HMRC appear to have no policy as to how hard they will pursue payment and whether they care about making 10's, 100's, 1,000's bankrupt.Blog? What blog...?Comment
-
-
Originally posted by thebear14 View PostFully agree Porker, however the only reason I am contemplating a pro active settle is the fact it was only 5 months, I'm thankfully not on as serious a position as a number of people. I could opt to ride it out and hope it goes away however that would increase the interest due and probably increase the likelihood of a penalty on top.Comment
-
Penaties
There is another reason why penalties are unlikely.
Most schemes are backed by a QC opinion.
It would be hard for HMRC to argue that the taxpayer hadn't taken "reasonable care" when they were acting in accordance with legal advice.Comment
-
Originally posted by porrker View PostI was recently chewing the fat over the situation with these schemes with a tax specialist and he gave the view that HMRC would struggle to apply Penalties and interest certainly to the DOTAS schemes as you have acted accoring to the law. Please dont shoot the messenger I found it an odd comment. Has anyone had a demand yet with penalties and interest?
Interest is due if you lose or settle.Comment
-
Originally posted by jbryce View PostIf there's a QC opinion - then penalties are unlikely (as told to my accountant by HMRC).
Interest is due if you lose or settle.Blog? What blog...?Comment
-
Originally posted by malvolio View PostBe careful relying on "QC opinion". At least one has said his claimed opinion wasn't actually unequivocally in favour of the scheme...
In order for HMRC to prove that the arrangement was ineffective they will have to, eventually, prove that this is the case in a court of law or at the GAAR. That has not changed.
DOTAS was introduced to give HMRC early warning of schemes to enable them to proactively close the loopholes that allowed avoidance to thrive, APNs now allows HMRC to push the risk back onto users. That is a good thing, and will hopefully scare people away from making the same mistake that I did.
Just because HMRC say your scheme doesn't work does not negate the advice that was given to you. Your scheme may be defensible, if it was well run it may be a tough nut for HMRC to crack.
There's a lot of fear out there, some of it propagated by scurrilous advisors who are after business.
Finally, avoidance is dead. If you join a scheme today based on a QC opinion then you should accept the risk that HMG will retrospectively change the law to get their money. In essence the advice of a QC or an accountant that utilises creative avoidance is meaningless.Comment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Comment