Appeal rejected - PwC tax avoidance scheme

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Revenue wins back £100m in avoided tax - FT.com

Sorry if this has already been covered chaps

[Waldorf]

Revenue wins back £100m in avoided tax - FT.com

Sorry if this has already been covered chaps

The link can only be viewed by FT subscribers

Any chance of posting what it is all about?

[Clare@InTouch]

The Court of Appeal has unanimously rejected an appeal by a taxpayer against HMRC regarding a tax avoidance scheme recommended by PricewaterhouseCoopers in the early noughties.
The Court also refused permission for Howard Peter Schofield to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The scheme, called Digital Collar, had been described by HMRC as "an artificial, circular, self-cancelling scheme designed with no purpose other than to avoid tax".

The scheme, which has not been in use since 2005, was used by about 200 people who must now all pay the tax in full, plus interest, on top of significant fees for use of the scheme itself.

Read more: Court rejects appeal over tax avoidance scheme - IFAonline

IFA Online - News, blogs and analysis for IFAs. Visit the website now.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Thanks Clare

[Higgs Boson]

What sort of scheme was it?

[Hex]

What sort of scheme was it?

"an artificial, circular, self-cancelling scheme designed with no purpose other than to avoid tax"

[cojak]

And rather tortuous as the punter had to live outside of the UK for 5 years.

[BrilloPad]

What sort of scheme was it?

Looks like avoidance of capital gains to me.

Well I suppose it is evasion now.

Presumably even if the court had approved the scheme then the government would just have changed the law retrospectively.

[Higgs Boson]

"an artificial, circular, self-cancelling scheme designed with no purpose other than to avoid tax"

Lose the words "other than to avoid tax"

And you have just described the legal aid system and the BBC

[centurian]

Presumably even if the court had approved the scheme then the government would just have changed the law retrospectively.

Perhaps, but at least so far, it seems that processes have been followed correctly. It was clearly an aggressive scheme from the outset, carrying large risks. HMRC disputed the scheme under existing legislation - and have won in court, twice.