BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[centurian]

we have structured our scheme deliberately in this way

Sounds like HRMC justification for a 100% "deliberate and concealed" penalty if they do find out then.

Whatever people may think of the amounts of the CN's - if it had not been declared, the amounts would have been doubled - and with interest, that would be close to 3 times the original amount of tax.

Presumably you warn your clients about the advantages and the the disadvantages of non disclosure. I think that was one of the criticisms of MP in the early days, in that they glossed over many of the disadvanges.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Sounds like HRMC justification for a 100% "deliberate and concealed" penalty if they do find out then.

I believe the scheme involves loans, which are not income, and therefore don't have to be declared.

HMRC may dispute this but we haven't quite reached the stage where they're judge & jury, so they'd have to prove their case in the tax courts.

[centurian]

If HMRC manage to demonstrate that the underlying loan is a sham - then by virtue, it should have been declared. So any additional arrangements that conceal the scheme will probably meet their own published guidelines of applying a 100% penalty.

The point I am making is that a scheme that seeks to deliberately hide from HMRC's radar is not without its disadvantages. It swaps one kind of risk for another. It's probably still a net gain on a risk profile, but people should be aware of that and decide for themselves.

Also remember HMRC don't need to prove anything - just show that their version of events is more likely than yours.

Nonetheless, it is galling that HMRC can levy what effectively amounts to a criminal fine using the civil burden of proof. Has that ever been challenged?


Edit: I suppose the penalty is not really a fine, but punitive (punishment) damages, which are allowed in a civil context, although pretty rare.

[zippo]

Have you seen this ?

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...next-step.html

Thoughts ??

[screwthis]

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...next-step.html

Thoughts ??

"If it is determined in due course that the scheme does not work, an additional charge would be payable, reflecting the amount underpaid and the time over which it is underpaid."

Otherwise known as interest??

[DonkeyRhubarb]

"If it is determined in due course that the scheme does not work, an additional charge would be payable, reflecting the amount underpaid and the time over which it is underpaid."

Otherwise known as interest??

No, they are talking about a charge in addition to interest.

The CIOT has ripped the proposals to shreds.

http://www.tax.org.uk/Resources/CIOT...HRTAS_CIOT.pdf

[SantaClaus]

Niemoller

In response to those who think this issue has nothing to do with them...


First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

[NotAllThere]

They did not come after you because of your politics, cause, race or religion.

[JamJarST]

In response to those who think this issue has nothing to do with them...


First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

Thanks for proving that every internet forum argument eventually comes back to Hitler and the Nazis

[slogger]

Thanks for proving that every internet forum argument eventually comes back to Hitler and the Nazis

lol - isnt that the point at which all arguments have been looked at - surprised it wasn't reached a while ago! :-)