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

[DonkeyRhubarb]

My letter from HMRC only covers 2005 onwards and I was using the planning from the very start. I guess it's safe to assume years pre-dating DOTAS aren't being targeted at this stage....

By 2005, do you mean tax year 2004/5 ?

I heard from someone else who was in it from 2002/3 to 2006/7. Only 2004/5 to 2006/7 were referred to in their letter.

[Fireship]

By 2005, do you mean tax year 2004/5 ?

I heard from someone else who was in it from 2002/3 to 2006/7. Only 2004/5 to 2006/7 were referred to in their letter.

Correct, 2004/05. I'll email you a copy.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Correct, 2004/05. I'll email you a copy.

Thanks.

Looks like APNs will only apply from 2004/05 onwards when DOTAS came in.

Not they are valid anyway mind you.

[BolshieBastard]

Thanks.

Looks like APNs will only apply from 2004/05 onwards when DOTAS came in.

Not they are valid anyway mind you.

OK, seeing as some people are starting to get these APN warning letters, what should individuals do when they receive one? Contact MP first for advice?

[GripRacing]

APN warning letter too, but for deGraaf

My letter from HMRC only covers 2005 onwards and I was using the planning from the very start. I guess it's safe to assume years pre-dating DOTAS aren't being targeted at this stage....

Hi,

I had a letter too, 06/07 - which was the year that I used deGraaf.

Not much point me asking MP what to do with this one I guess as deGraff seem to have quietly evaporated...

Good to see some comments giving hope that all is not lost though as my wife and I haven't really slept since we got the letter. The total amount being requested by HMRC (all years) means we would/will have to sell the house, hand over the equity and start off like I'm 21 again. However I'm more than 35 years past that point and have 4 kids.

When I explain what is happening to anyone not involved they think I'm making it up - that it can't be real. Even I struggle to believe what I'm saying is true sometimes.

Remaining positive though, as the overall injustice and simple thuggery of HMRC now takes me right back to the Sheriff of Nottingham (Gauk), King John (Cameron) and Robin Hood (NTRT).

But back then Robin Hood was the hero, fighting the immoral tax collectors, this time we're the villains...

[warlord]

Hi,

I had a letter too, 06/07 - which was the year that I used deGraaf.

Not much point me asking MP what to do with this one I guess as deGraff seem to have quietly evaporated...

Good to see some comments giving hope that all is not lost though as my wife and I haven't really slept since we got the letter. The total amount being requested by HMRC (all years) means we would/will have to sell the house, hand over the equity and start off like I'm 21 again. However I'm more than 35 years past that point and have 4 kids.

When I explain what is happening to anyone not involved they think I'm making it up - that it can't be real. Even I struggle to believe what I'm saying is true sometimes.

Remaining positive though, as the overall injustice and simple thuggery of HMRC now takes me right back to the Sheriff of Nottingham (Gauk), King John (Cameron) and Robin Hood (NTRT).

But back then Robin Hood was the hero, fighting the immoral tax collectors, this time we're the villains...

Same boat here....still I'm sure Hmrc will let me pay my 100k bill monthly, maybe for the next 20 years :-(

[helen7]

So do these warning letters specify the amount they think we owe?

I was in from 2001 and have a CTD to cover my liability. If APN will only cover 2004 onwards; I wonder how that would work in respect of using CTD to pay the APN.......

[bananarepublic]

So do these warning letters specify the amount they think we owe?

I was in from 2001 and have a CTD to cover my liability. If APN will only cover 2004 onwards; I wonder how that would work in respect of using CTD to pay the APN.......

You can use the CTD to pay the APN. The payment date will be treated as the date you bought the CTD, *NOT* the date you paid the APN, so you don't lose the protection the CTD gives against HMRC interest accrual.

If you just have a single CTD which covers tax years pre and post 2004, I think you should be able apportion part of it to post 2004 and retain the balance in the CTD.

[bananarepublic]

When a promoter registered a scheme I doubt HMRC ever asked themselves the question "is this notifiable?". They just accepted the disclosure and issued an SRN. At the time it didn't matter because DOTAS was just a mechanism for (a) getting advance notice of schemes before they were marketed and (b) detecting their use by the presence of an SRN on the self-assessment.

As far as HMRC were concerned, the more schemes that were registered the better, even if they weren't actually notifiable. You could probably have registered virtually anything and HMRC would have issued an SRN.

DOTAS is now being used in a way which was never intended. Now, all of a sudden, it does matter if schemes were notifiable, and HMRC may come unstuck with this.

It is quite clear by looking at the original DOTAS legislation back circa 2004, that the Montpelier arrangement was not notifiable. This is because the scheme pre-dated the DOTAS legislation.

What is particularly pernicious about the APN legislation, is that even if there was no requirement to register under DOTAS, that fact that somebody else did means that you are likely to be issued an APN.

[Ganimos]

Payment by CTD

So do these warning letters specify the amount they think we owe?

I was in from 2001 and have a CTD to cover my liability. If APN will only cover 2004 onwards; I wonder how that would work in respect of using CTD to pay the APN.......

The first letter does not specify what you owe. Its says......

" In the next 1 to 8 weeks we will send you an accelerated payment notice showing the amount that we believe relates to your use of the scheme. When we send the notice we will also tell you how we have worked out the amount "

Regarding CTD...............

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...-f-notices.pdf

2.4.12