BN66/S58 update

[Old Greg]

Because either he has not been given a shotgun licence, or his sofa has a tear in it?

The first leads inevitably to the second.

[proggy]

Not at all. The QC opinion should have included a note:

However, we must acknowledge the risk of retrospective legislation. This has occurred as a measure against tax avoidance in Australia, a jurisdiction withartina similarities to the UK.

No need to trawl at all. How is that for you?

Great thanks.

[Old Greg]

Great thanks.

Good. So it seems as if the QC opinion was dodgy.

[vetran]

If it was so obvious then HMRC should have shut down the system 10 years ago. They didn't, they signed off on years of the companies investing in these schemes I don't recall them returning Company Tax returns every year because the contractor had used an EBT, they can't go back and say yes we meant that ten years ago but we signed off on your accounts anyway.

This isn't someone squirrelling away cash & Diamonds in Switzerland or taking cash in hand it was reported every year.

The Schemes fell into 'who dares wins - Rodders' we were all sure of that.

So does Starbucks tax Avoidance. Now has HMRC got the balls to go after them or Vodafone ? No it hasn't.

Stop it going forward, yes of course.

Demand penalties for something that was legal then? No of course not.

[proggy]

If it was so obvious then HMRC should have shut down the system 10 years ago. They didn't, they signed off on years of the companies investing in these schemes I don't recall them returning Company Tax returns every year because the contractor had used an EBT, they can't go back and say yes we meant that ten years ago but we signed off on your accounts anyway.

This isn't someone squirrelling away cash & Diamonds in Switzerland or taking cash in hand it was reported every year.

The Schemes fell into 'who dares wins - Rodders' we were all sure of that.

So does Starbucks tax Avoidance. Now has HMRC got the balls to go after them or Vodafone ? No it hasn't.

Stop it going forward, yes of course.

Demand penalties for something that was legal then? No of course not.

My thoughts exactly.

[AtW]

If it was so obvious then HMRC should have shut down the system 10 years ago.

The judge addressed this point in judgement - basically lack of timely response from HMRC gives no right to fook over the taxpayer.

I am sure HMRC did not deal with this before because usage of scheme too low to warrant attention - based on number of people who got into it this scheme was stopped pretty early compared to other schemes that got more popular (EBT?).

They didn't, they signed off on years of the companies investing in these schemes I don't recall them returning Company Tax returns every year because the contractor had used an EBT, they can't go back and say yes we meant that ten years ago but we signed off on your accounts anyway.

Pardon my ignorance, but when exactly HMRC signs off accounts? It receives submissions and can acknowledge receipt of those.

[vetran]

The judge addressed this point in judgement - basically lack of timely response from HMRC gives no right to fook over the taxpayer.

I am sure HMRC did not deal with this before because usage of scheme too low to warrant attention - based on number of people who got into it this scheme was stopped pretty early compared to other schemes that got more popular (EBT?).



Pardon my ignorance, but when exactly HMRC signs off accounts? It receives submissions and can acknowledge receipt of those.

What*happens*next? When*you*submit*your*online*return*to*HMRC*you*wil l*receive*an*acknowledgment*of
receipt.*The*acknowledgment*does*not*mean*that*HMR C*has*agreed*the*figures*in*the
return.*HMRC*can*amend*the*return*to*correct*obvio us*errors*or*omissions*or*anything*else
that*they*have*reason*to*believe*is*incorrect*in*t he*light*of*information*available*to*them.
HMRC*can*also*enquire*into*the*return.
Once*you*have*delivered*a*Company*Tax*Return*you*c an,*subject*to*certain*time*limits,
amend*the*return.

They enquired or corrected any form based on EBT usage? NO so they effectively approved them.

Timely response is a reasonable expectation from the above. No Matter what the Judge said.

[fullyautomatix]

They enquired or corrected any form based on EBT usage? NO so they effectively approved them.

Timely response is a reasonable expectation from the above. No Matter what the Judge said.

So someone submitted to HMRC that instead of 40% tax on their 150K income they will pay 3.5% and HMRC approved it?

[AtW]

They enquired or corrected any form based on EBT usage? NO so they effectively approved them.

Timely response is a reasonable expectation from the above. No Matter what the Judge said.

[vetran]

you missed the Cretin bit.