Settlement Opportunity

[AlCapone]

The legislation (FNs). allow you to be guilty by association, but not innocent by association. So if 'y' wins then you will not be off the hook because 'x' is similar - it may deter HMRC, but that's about it.

Just want to come back to this. HMRC only seem to deal in SRNs not scheme names. Their APN list for example - no mention of scheme names, just SRNs:

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...tober_2014.pdf.

So even though my scheme doesn't exist nor is being defended in name, my provider is defending an identical scheme with the same SRN as the scheme I was on. Only the scheme name is different. If the case goes against HMRC how could I not "be off the hook" based on this? If HMRC deemed my scheme and the scheme that is going to tribunal so different why give them the same SRN?

And here they even say "Promoters of avoidance schemes are also not required to disclose scheme names to HMRC. The SRN is all the user will need in order to identify whether their scheme is on the list."

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...harged-by-hmrc

[Rob79]

Just want to come back to this. HMRC only seem to deal in SRNs not scheme names. Their APN list for example - no mention of scheme names, just SRNs:

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...tober_2014.pdf.

So even though my scheme doesn't exist nor is being defended in name, my provider is defending an identical scheme with the same SRN as the scheme I was on. Only the scheme name is different. If the case goes against HMRC how could I not "be off the hook" based on this? If HMRC deemed my scheme and the scheme that is going to tribunal so different why give them the same SRN?

And here they even say "Promoters of avoidance schemes are also not required to disclose scheme names to HMRC. The SRN is all the user will need in order to identify whether their scheme is on the list."

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...harged-by-hmrc

It's very unlikely that the facts, the documents, the timings, the money flows, the process etc are "identical". The forensic legal analysis is almost certain to throw up differences and this is HMRC's "get out of jail free" card.

If HMRC lose a "very similar" scheme then your case is much better. However HMRC will refuse to divulge details on the similar scheme on grounds of client confidentiality so you may never actually be able to prove in a Court that the schemes are very similar.

So, in issuing a Follower Notice will HMRC be bound by the same requirement to be "very similar"? Unfortunately is appears not. It appears that they can cherry pick certain elements of decisions.

HMRC's defence of using SRN's is that every scheme user should have been informed of the SRN and should be using it. Failure to do so is penalty territory.

It's also a fact that the names that promoters use change form time to time and also a promoter may go out if business, phoenix into NewCo and launch essentially the same scheme, so do they have different names? yes.

Not fair really.

[AlCapone]

It's very unlikely that the facts, the documents, the timings, the money flows, the process etc are "identical". The forensic legal analysis is almost certain to throw up differences and this is HMRC's "get out of jail free" card.

If HMRC lose a "very similar" scheme then your case is much better. However HMRC will refuse to divulge details on the similar scheme on grounds of client confidentiality so you may never actually be able to prove in a Court that the schemes are very similar.

So, in issuing a Follower Notice will HMRC be bound by the same requirement to be "very similar"? Unfortunately is appears not. It appears that they can cherry pick certain elements of decisions.

HMRC's defence of using SRN's is that every scheme user should have been informed of the SRN and should be using it. Failure to do so is penalty territory.

It's also a fact that the names that promoters use change form time to time and also a promoter may go out if business, phoenix into NewCo and launch essentially the same scheme, so do they have different names? yes.

Not fair really.

Thanks, Rob. I’ve been told that essentially every trace of the scheme has been wound up and there is nothing left of it, apart from it would seem, this common SRN with a subsequent scheme that is being defended by the promoter.

I guess it’s a thin thread to be hanging on. It seems there’s no way to defend the scheme I was on.

[NeedTheSunshine]

Received my Settlement Calculation

Haven't posted before but have been lurking. I had an open enquiry for 2006/7 and received my Settlement Calculation this week.

I'm posting as there seems to be some debate about inheritance tax. My calculation did include inheritance tax (which I wasn't really expecting). Also, the loan benefit that was declared on my original tax return for that year was deducted from the loan amount. Interest was charged from when the tax was due (so in my case 31st Jan 2008).

It's taken seven weeks to receive the calculation since I submitted my loan amounts so if you are considering settling I would get in touch with them soon.

I'm still undecided about what to do (and depressed about the whole thing) but feel in a better position to make a decision now that I actually have the calculation.

[StrengthInNumbers]

Take prof advice, IHT is just plain stupid

[hellolondon]

Income and Expenditure Form

Hi,

I received my settlement calculation today.

As I was only with it for a very short time, my tax and interest is not too bad.

I am going to settle and fill out the form. But they asked the form 36A1 to be filled out (Income and Expenditures).

Did other people who settled fill it out? Would they not allow settlement if i don't fill it out?

I really don't want to declare all my assets.

Thanks.

[Boobetty]

My calculation did include inheritance tax...the loan benefit that was declared on my original tax return for that year was deducted from the loan...

And therein lies the IHT catch22. Either the loan existed or it didn't, but not both. The IHT liability relies on the premise that the loans remained repayable until settlement (I.e. Now). Income Tax liability assumes the loans were a sham and taxable when the funds reached our UK bank accounts. The fact that your settlement calculation has given you back the tax you paid on the loans as a benefit in kind suggests an HMRC concession that the loans were no longer accruing any benefit, yet the IHT element suggests they are still repayable.

Para 105 from Boyle:

"Given there was never any evidence that Mr Boyle’s loans were repaid, and no attempt was ever made to repay them, we conclude that they were written off in the tax years in question and therefore s.188(1)(b) applies and the amount written off is to be treated as earnings from the employment for that year."

I don't get it at all.

[StrengthInNumbers]

IHT

Those settling are being penalised with IHT. HMRC will have to give up on IHT as things go to tribunal.

[gettingangry]

Hi

Has anyone got a copy of the letter that HMRC sent out (on at least 3 occasions as far as I can remember) saying that the scheme was being investigated. It was a generic letter about the scheme not a specific one relating to your own figures.

I'm sure I saw a copy on a thread on this forum - but can't remember where it was and searching is throwing up too many results.

[MrsB1974]

Hi

Has anyone got a copy of the letter that HMRC sent out (on at least 3 occasions as far as I can remember) saying that the scheme was being investigated. It was a generic letter about the scheme not a specific one relating to your own figures.

I'm sure I saw a copy on a thread on this forum - but can't remember where it was and searching is throwing up too many results.

I have the original letter from July but (sorry, newbie here) can't see how to upload an attachment?