No To Retro Tax – Campaign Against Section 58 Finance Act 2008

[lucozade]

Mate if you are in a working age, through Bankruptcy HMRC might be able to get 2 or even 5 year period in all your earning apart from basic needs go to HMRC.
In my understanding Bankruptcy should only be an option for someone totally incapable of paying back. Personal Bankruptcy are not pretty!

Already met with a bankruptcy specialist. You reference my earnings but if I'm not earning then there ain't much they can get.

Bankruptcy for some will mean loss of security clearance I expect, no clearance no job. The End.

[smalldog]

Potential to claim!

dont know how many of you read the sunday times but talk of a massive mis-selling compensation of £12bn along the lines of PPI which was £15bn. Providers such as Coutts (!), UBS, HSBC plus other promoters.

With individuals entitled to claim compensation from scheme promoters of all HMRC tax relief, fees plus costs, and if the scheme provider has disappeared, then the financial ombudsman service will compensate upto £50k!

so....if you can get your hands on a copy of the ST, I recommend it! splashed all over front page of money section and carries onto page 2. Its also in the main edition too, the article talks about modest investors caught in tax intended to catch the rich..

[bananarepublic]

On the CTD vs APN front, I have thought of some scenarios which make the exchange of a CTD for an APN very problematic. This might explain why the CTD department are having a hard time getting their head around it.

Now all of this is pure conjecture and may turn out to be complete and utter tosh, but bear with me.

For most affected by BN66, there is one scheme, several CN's for various years resulting in one APN demand. Most BN66 users that purchased CTD's probably bought a single CTD several years ago. In this case, an exchange is simple - just the payment date of the APN is back dated to that of the CTD - and if that isn't enough to cover the APN, then an additional payment is made with the actual payment date - simple

I cannot see why HMRC would not want to do this - it would completely undermine the whole premise of CTD's to do otherwise.

Now here's where it gets complicated. Imagine a user in 4 different schemes spanning several years. The chances of all 4 schemes being defeated is quite low, but the chance of 1 scheme being defeated is reasonable, so they take out a CTD many years ago to cover about 40% of the total liability of the 4 schemes.

4 APNs arrive (probably not at the same time), resulting in the remaining 60% being due. The person pays the other 60%, but how does the original CTD payment date get apportioned to the 4 different APNs - is it proportional - is it in the order the APNs were received.

And here is why it matters. Remember that from a paperwork point of view, a CTD has zero connection to a particular tax demand / open enquiry. The last APN to arrive (by which time the CTD kitty would be "used up" covering the earlier APNs) might be the first (and only) scheme to be defeated in court, resulting in a big interest bill even though the user paid HMRC more than that amount of money several years earlier.

So I'm not sure an "exchange" arrangement is going to work. HMRC might need to have a system whereby you retain the CTD - but it becomes "locked" so you cannot cash it in - and your APN payments are reduced, but you can still use the CTD to make the final payment should any of the APNs be lost in court.

This is an administrative nightmare - and I suspect none of HMRCs systems are designed to cope with it.

I doubt the complex scenario outlined above affects many BN66 users, but it might explain why the CTD department are struggling to give a simple answer.

In short, the whole thing is a right #@&%$ mess.

If a CTD is used to settle an APN and the appeal fails then HMRC have a schedule of tax due and a schedule of payments. In the case of a CTD tax should be treated as paid on its purchase date. The interest calculation is straight forward.

If the taxpayer was in many schemes and some failed and some did not the issue isn't so much in the calculation per se, it is that when CTDs are used to settle non APN assessments HMRC give you some discretion on how the CTDs are applied (normally earliest CTD against earliest liability) That is you can tell them the order in which your CTDs are applied.

For APNs if you are in multiple schemes you are into permutations and combinations as to how the CTDs are applied in the event some succeed and others fail. In particular if I had a CTD certificate of >100k I might not want that applied because they carry a much higher interest rate if encashed even though it would mean me not having a CTD for a particular year and paying the cash interest rates.

So yes I see your point, but as far as the calculation is concerned it really is only an issue if you are in multiple APN affected schemes AND you have more than one CTD certificate at least one of which is for more than 100k. Otherwise the default CTD application of earliest first works fine.

You have unearthed an issue though. Some way of locking the CTD would address the issue - are HMRC prepared to be pragmatic though?

I don't have any sympathy for HMRC regarding an administrative nightmare. It is just another example of the law of unintended consequences.

[smalldog]

dont know how many of you read the sunday times but talk of a massive mis-selling compensation of £12bn along the lines of PPI which was £15bn. Providers such as Coutts (!), UBS, HSBC plus other promoters.

With individuals entitled to claim compensation from scheme promoters of all HMRC tax relief, fees plus costs, and if the scheme provider has disappeared, then the financial ombudsman service will compensate upto £50k!

so....if you can get your hands on a copy of the ST, I recommend it! splashed all over front page of money section and carries onto page 2. Its also in the main edition too, the article talks about modest investors caught in tax intended to catch the rich..

BUMP! Guys please read this, CTD or no CTD makes no odds if the scheme provider compensates you or the FOS has to pay you!!

[BrilloPad]

dont know how many of you read the sunday times but talk of a massive mis-selling compensation of £12bn along the lines of PPI which was £15bn. Providers such as Coutts (!), UBS, HSBC plus other promoters.

With individuals entitled to claim compensation from scheme promoters of all HMRC tax relief, fees plus costs, and if the scheme provider has disappeared, then the financial ombudsman service will compensate upto £50k!

so....if you can get your hands on a copy of the ST, I recommend it! splashed all over front page of money section and carries onto page 2. Its also in the main edition too, the article talks about modest investors caught in tax intended to catch the rich..

Does the ST say how to go about claiming? Who do we approach?

[bananarepublic]

Does the ST say how to go about claiming? Who do we approach?

Presumably the story is something to do with film partnerships where a large amount of money was invested up front? Seems very different to what we were up to....

[smalldog]

Does the ST say how to go about claiming? Who do we approach?

As you would expect there is a sequence, Initially the scheme provider, then if no joy the FOS (Financial Ombudsman service), then the Financial services compensation scheme should the scheme provider have since disappeared, the FSCS pay max of £50k, better than a kick in the teeth!

This will be almost as big as PPI according to financial experts!

does make me wonder, has anyone even asked MP if they are prepared to cover the APN's, its never really crossed my mind but it should have? I suspect nobody has, its a basic question really, its their scheme after all...

[tendo71]

CTDs and APNs

Given the importance of understanding how CTDs and APNs work, preferably before any APNs hit, how can we or NTRT get a solid answer that we can depend on.

I have mailed a number of HMRC people responsible for answering questions on APNs and will follow up with calls. However I am not expecting any quick reply that I can rely on.

Is anyone in a conversation with HMRC about this at the moment?

[smalldog]

Given the importance of understanding how CTDs and APNs work, preferably before any APNs hit, how can we or NTRT get a solid answer that we can depend on.

I have mailed a number of HMRC people responsible for answering questions on APNs and will follow up with calls. However I am not expecting any quick reply that I can rely on.

Is anyone in a conversation with HMRC about this at the moment?

have u even bothered reading my post earlier about compensation? You WONT NEED A CTD, they become irrelevant!!! FFS guys read the bloody posts eh!!! you can lead a horse to water.......

[tendo71]

There is an FOI here re CTDs and APNs - https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/apns_and_ctds. Worth following.