HMRC consultation on tackling marketed schemes

[AtW]

It's not unreasonable for HMRC to recoup £6bn from Vodafone, but they haven't done that (nor will they).

In my view they should recoup it.

In fairness however it should be said that Vodafone is already paying a lot of taxes and provides employment to tens of thousands and services to millions of customers - that's not the same case as some guy pretending he is not a full time employee and using fake loans to disguise renumeration.

[AtW]

So there should be an incentive for HMRC to come to trial quickly, then, rather than dragging it out and hoping that people lose the will to fight, which seems to be their current modus operandi.

They have got legal right to do that in time that was allowed to them (6 years I think). I believe High Court answered that question anyway, basically saying that there is no obligation on HMRC to challenge such schemes quicker than they did (as long as it is within allowed time it's ok).

What's more important is that even if HMRC challenged schemes on day 1 it would still be long legal battle, so it's entirely reasonable for them to ask to deposit tax for cases that close to those that have already been settled. Don't like it? Don't get into DOTAS scheme, simples. And if you were in DOTAS scheme then you are getting what you deserved - nobody put a gun to your head to do that, in fact I've noticed some people jumped from one scheme to another showing complete contempt of the system, well - you are reaping what you have sown.

[DirtyDog]

In my view they should recoup it.

In fairness however it should be said that Vodafone is already paying a lot of taxes and provides employment to tens of thousands and services to millions of customers - that's not the same case as some guy pretending he is not a full time employee and using fake loans to disguise renumeration.

In fairness however it should be said that Vodafone should be paying significantly more tax than they are. The difference is that they took Dave Hartnett out for a few drinks and he ignored the lawyers and wrote off the bill. It's not the same as someone using loans to disguise employment, they used a pretend company in Luxembourg to funnel the money through. Some would suggest that this is on a bigger scale.

They have better lobbyists, though. How else do you not only avoid paying £6bn but you also get an agreement that HMRC will leave you alone and you can continue to use the scheme?

[AtW]

In fairness however it should be said that Vodafone should be paying significantly more tax than they are.

I agree, but it's a different discussion - just because somebody else does not pay their taxes does not mean you should not.

They have better lobbyists, though. How else do you not only avoid paying £6bn but you also get an agreement that HMRC will leave you alone and you can continue to use the scheme?

Yes for sure. For the record - I don't like that and HMRC should be pressured to make those big companies pay tax in full even if that bankrupts them in process, same as when it comes to individual taxpayers.

[DirtyDog]

They have got legal right to do that in time that was allowed to them (6 years I think). I believe High Court answered that question anyway, basically saying that there is no obligation on HMRC to challenge such schemes quicker than they did (as long as it is within allowed time it's ok).

To then moan that the cases take a long time to come to court is taking the piss then. The way to stop them dragging on is to do things quickly. However, the approach that HMRC want to take (and will take because there's no chance that anything is going to stop this legislation) is that they should have the money up front because the cases take a while to drag out.

The upshot will be that there won't be as many cases coming up because no-one will have the spirit or money to fund a challenge any more.

What's more important is that even if HMRC challenged schemes on day 1 it would still be long legal battle, so it's entirely reasonable for them to ask to deposit tax for cases that close to those that have already been settled. Don't like it? Don't get into DOTAS scheme, simples. And if you were in DOTAS scheme then you are getting what you deserved - nobody put a gun to your head to do that, in fact I've noticed some people jumped from one scheme to another showing complete contempt of the system, well - you are reaping what you have sown.

That's exactly what HMRC want people to think. Well done.

[AtW]

The upshot will be that there won't be as many cases coming up because no-one will have the spirit or money to fund a challenge any more.

Very good, this should hopefully lead to tax cuts in the future.

That's exactly what HMRC want people to think. Well done.

Well if it's not settled, then sue them for the money+interest+damages - it's been shown that a large group of tax "avoiders" can pool up relatively small amounts and delay things for many years, you can still do that, just don't expect to hold onto the money in question. And why should you? Bank robber won't be allowed to keep the allegedly stolen money whilst there are legal proceedings, why should you expect the same when using DOTAS number which is a big red flag with words - "I ROBBED THE TREASURY BLIND".

[DirtyDog]

Very good, this should hopefully lead to tax cuts in the future.

Well if it's not settled, then sue them for the money+interest+damages - it's been shown that a large group of tax avoiders can pool up relatively small amounts and delay things for many years, you can still do that, just don't expect to hold onto the money in question. And why should you? Bank robber won't be allowed to keep the allegedly stolen money whilst there are legal proceedings, why should you expect the same when using DOTAS number which is a big red flag with words - "I ROBBED THE TREASURY BLIND".

Generally there is evidence against the bank robber. In this case, it would be like catching a bank robber with a big bag marked "SWAG". Then seeing everyone with a similar bag has to hand over their money because they have a bag that looks like one a bank robber had.

[AtW]

Generally there is evidence against the bank robber. In this case, it would be like catching a bank robber with a big bag marked "SWAG". Then seeing everyone with a similar bag has to hand over their money because they have a bag that looks like one a bank robber had.

DOTAS number is evidence against you as well as the massive difference in tax you paid and what should have happened under normal circumstances.

[DirtyDog]

DOTAS number is evidence against you and the massive difference in tax you paid and what should have happened under normal circumstances.

So you think that every scheme with a DOTAS number is the same?

[AtW]

So you think that every scheme with a DOTAS number is the same?

Disclosure of tax avoidance schemes (DOTAS) - are they all the same as in tax avoidance?

You betcha.