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

[elpinar]

this is quite intersting

Tax-avoidance-and-fraud-investigation | Crowe Clark Whitehill

[elpinar]

theres a nice picture on page 42 -- showing they are on track !!!

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...Final_v1.0.pdf

[webberg]

Tax-avoidance-and-fraud-investigation | Crowe Clark Whitehill

Very good article.

The author is clearly of the view that Montpelier and its principals are in HMRC crosshairs for the promoter regime and it would be hard to disagree with that.

I know a lot of people here are relying upon Montpelier and it is to be hoped that one of HMRC's attacks does not stick as that will damage the credibility of any evidence?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I have a hypothetical that I know won’t be a popular question – but I’m gonna ask it anyway as I am genuinely interested In the answer.

If the APN dropped through your door tomorrow and you had the money to pay – I know everyone would rather not as we all did NOTHING WRONG so why should we – and I’m not talking about you won the lottery so it’s a drop on the ocean – I’m talking virtually all your saving gone or equity in your house or whatever.
so if you could would you pay (obv on day 89) just to close the door on it and have it done or would you still a) believe truth will prevail and we will not have to pay it all/any of it or b) out of principle you would fight on come hell or high water.

Honest answers ….

Paying the APN doesn't close the door. APNs only apply from 2004/5 onwards and don't include interest. There could still be a lot more to pay further down the line.

Montpelier will provide a response for us to dispute the APN. Everyone should do that. Assuming HMRC reject that, Montpelier will apply for a JR and hopefully find a way to suspend APNs.

If push comes to shove, and the APN still remains payable, then not paying it will incur penalties and risk enforcement action.

There's a lot of Hobson's choice here.

[webberg]

Paying the APN doesn't close the door. APNs only apply from 2004/5 onwards and don't include interest. There could still be a lot more to pay further down the line.

Montpelier will provide a response for us to dispute the APN. Everyone should do that. Assuming HMRC reject that, Montpelier will apply for a JR and hopefully find a way to suspend APNs.

If push comes to shove, and the APN still remains payable, then not paying it will incur penalties and risk enforcement action.

There's a lot of Hobson's choice here.

I have prepared and submitted representations against APN's over the past 3 months.

Grounds have included contesting the fairness (one scheme gets an APN another does not but HMRC says both are avoidance); calculation of the "asserted advantage" being incorrect (settlement offer at x% but APN at 0%); lack of due care and attention; incorrect address.

The only one that is effective is the last. HMRC has rejected all the others.

We'll go again I'm sure with a few more reasons.

Bluntly, if you have an APN then prepare to pay it. You might get a delay but you are very unlikely to get a withdrawal.

If you can't pay it, tell HMRC and seek advice on whether this means IVA/bankruptcy. Get professional advice. I've seen material on this thread over the weekend that makes me wince. A professional is likely to be correct and a "man in a pub" or a "post on a forum", not.

The firm I left last week rejected my suggestion for and APN checking/representation fee of £50. Frankly I felt that the representations were generic and once the thought had been put into it, then £50 was about right. If we could have achieved a withdrawal, we may have gone for a higher price - worth thinking about if you're being asked for fees.

[lilikins1]

Grant Thornton are a good accountancy firm. But I would expect very few of the people there who specialise in tax to understand HMRC's approach to collecting unpaid tax from individuals who cannot pay. It is just not something that most people there will know in any detail.

While a lot of accountancy and law firms will give such free meeting, the advice that they give in relation to HMRC collecting debts (a very specialised subject) may not worth the paper that it isn't written on. If someone does try this approach (and why not?) make sure you gen up on what TaxAid says beforehand. Then ask them some questions that you know the answers to (based on your TaxAid knowledge) and then ask them about the results they personally have achieved, and HMRC's attitude, in their negotiations. With these answers, you'll be in a better position to trust them.

Now JusticeJames may have been lucky enough to speak to just such a person. I don't know.

Only thing I can say is I've been in meetings with an Insolvency Praticioner who specialises in HMRC dealings and they did not mention anything about not taking my home away as JusticeJames mentioned. First thing they wanted to know is how much equity I had on my house to see if HMRC would come down on it like a ton of bricks.

Best thing as you said is to get expert advice

[webberg]

I'm no expert in terms of qualifications however iv not just taken the words of a meeting with one lawyer firm (grant thorntons) iv also had meetings with three other top notch " in the know companies". Plus spent over the past year researching every possible scenario etc etc no doubt others have too. You will find most reputable lawyer firms will grant you a meeting free of charge to answer some questions. Pinsent Masons are also making great headway in this kind of retrospective taxation. There are many others too.

Grant Thornton are not lawyers.
Pinsent Masons are lawyers but I doubt that "headway" is how they would describe any action on retrospection.
Who are the "in the know" outfits? I work in tax avoidance enquiry and settlement and the ones I know of (often personally) are not pretending that APN withdrawal is within their power. I do know of a number of people who claim to be able to do this (but have seen no proof) but I would not put them in the top 4 divisions of law or accounting firms.

With respect, I'd also take issue with some of your other statements. As a point of view or opinion, you can probably make the statements you have. As objective fact, perhaps not and certainly not without some rationale.

You admit to not being an expert. I would hesitate to call myself an expert in APN but I do have 20 years of designing, developing, defending and destroying tax avoidance schemes under my belt in a career of close on 40 years in tax. I'd be interested in an offline debate on some of the points you raise if you wish?

[BrilloPad]

If you can't pay it, tell HMRC and seek advice on whether this means IVA/bankruptcy. Get professional advice. I've seen material on this thread over the weekend that makes me wince. A professional is likely to be correct and a "man in a pub" or a "post on a forum", not.

The advice from Montpelier is different. Do not tell HMRC.

Specifically regarding APNs, I have taken insolvency professional advice and they can't see how a judge will sign off a bankruptcy order. I know there are (particularly) corrupt judges - and nothing is certain in life.

HMRC are liars and cheats. Keep well clear of them.

[BolshieBastard]

The advice from Montpelier is different. Do not tell HMRC.

Specifically regarding APNs, I have taken insolvency professional advice and they can't see how a judge will sign off a bankruptcy order. I know there are (particularly) corrupt judges - and nothing is certain in life.

HMRC are liars and cheats. Keep well clear of them.

Well yes but previous advice from MP was you've nothing to worry about, we're confident we'll win and dont bother buying a CTD.

I wish Id have ignored the 'dont buy a CTD' a lot earlier.

[webberg]

The advice from Montpelier is different. Do not tell HMRC.

Specifically regarding APNs, I have taken insolvency professional advice and they can't see how a judge will sign off a bankruptcy order. I know there are (particularly) corrupt judges - and nothing is certain in life.

HMRC are liars and cheats. Keep well clear of them.

I accept Mr BP that you are a respected voice on this forum and have been proven correct on a number of issues.

In my personal opinion however it is NEVER a good idea to ignore HMRC. They may be difficult to deal with, frustrating, impersonal, inefficient, infuriating and inflexible, but in my dealings with them over close on 40 years, I've never experienced them lying or cheating.

I have caught them out when they've tried to renege on agreements or analysed something incorrectly. I've had furious rows with them when I think that act like a bully. I've made formal complaints against some individuals who have stepped over the mark in writing/speaking with a client. In all of that, I've never been able to prove that they have, as an agency, acted maliciously or been deliberately deceitful.

Yes, I used to work for HMRC. I left in 1979. Since then they have had several internal revolutions and they're not the outfit I left.

If Montpelier are advising you and you trust their motives as applied to you circumstances, then by all means follow their advice.

For those not in a Montpelier scheme and with different circumstances, think very carefully about not responding to HMRC. In my opinion, it is always better to respond, even if that is to ask for more information.