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....
-
merely at clientco for the entertainment -
It's law now so they don't need to find a way. All they have to do is send out 43,000 letters.Originally posted by eek View PostComment
-
They didn't need APN to destroy schemes going forward. They can (and did) change the law. The APN is all about forcing the tax due from the past into the Government coffers.Originally posted by eek View Post
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
-
But HMRC have no imposed duty of care, so they don't. That is something that really needs to be sorted out.Originally posted by Rob79 View PostBlog? What blog...?
Comment
-
-
I 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?Originally posted by thebear14 View PostComment
-
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
-
If there's a QC opinion - then penalties are unlikely (as told to my accountant by HMRC).Originally posted by porrker View Post
Interest is due if you lose or settle.Comment
-
Be careful relying on "QC opinion". At least one has said his claimed opinion wasn't actually unequivocally in favour of the scheme...Originally posted by jbryce View PostBlog? What blog...?Comment
-
So. My accountants view is that if you enter into an arrangement and you have an indication that it is legal from a QC or even, to a certain extent, the supplier; then as an average joe you have sought, and received, professional advice.Originally posted by malvolio View Post
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
Comment