Settlement Opportunity

[squirrel]

More uncertainty

But then again ...

"If you receive an Accelerated Payment Notice (APN) during the CLSO, you must pay the amount requested or make representations within the specified time limit"

I thought APN's were final (until tribunal) How does one make representations? What am I missing here?

[centurian]

I interpreted that bit as meaning the normal APN representations that you can do anyway (i.e. ask them very nicely to check the figures again). But re-reading it, it could mean something else.

This jumps out as being two separate teams each working on their own timescale - and the fact that the SO deadline has been extended has no effect on whatever timescales the APN team have in mind.

I wouldn't be too concerned - I suspect it will still take a while for the APNs to be issued anyway. But those that were hoping that SO deadline meant an automatic extension to APN timelines - doesn't look like it.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I wouldn't have thought that there would be two separate teams, one calculating liabilities for SO and another doing very similar calculations for APN.

That would be very inefficient.

Oh wait a minute, it's HMRC isn't it.

[StrengthInNumbers]

SO is for HMRC to get data collected. From each scheme they get 10 people providing all the details and they are able to push the APNs quickly out of door. These sample people get nothing in return but solve a big problem for HMRC. They will not wait for issuing APNs and have issued where they could already.

As I said it is an opportunity for HMRC. They are not daft and are approaching this in a planned manner. They know legal position is not at all strong for them and thus got new powers.

Only way is go to the courts. HMRC will drag and delay to ensure as many as possible give up and settle.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Obviously HMRC would prefer people to settle than issue APNs. Settlement is final and irrevocable. With APNs there is a risk that they would have to repay the money.

HMRC want you to doubt you can win. Worse, HMRC want you to fear that you could be even worse off if you don't settle (NICs, penalties, tribunal costs).

Spreading FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) is the name of the game.

[jbryce]

This is all nonsense, I have a figure which they're now going to add IHT on to, and they're going to win their case in court based on ToAA?
If there are 40,000 scheme users, and 50% decline the SO then the courts are going to be very busy.

How many FTTs sat last year?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

This is all nonsense, I have a figure which they're now going to add IHT on to, and they're going to win their case in court based on ToAA?
If there are 40,000 scheme users, and 50% decline the SO then the courts are going to be very busy.

How many FTTs sat last year?

There won't be an FTT hearing for each user. Schemes are handled using one or several test/lead cases.

[squirrel]

If there are 40,000 scheme users, and 50% decline the SO then the courts are going to be very busy.

How many FTTs sat last year?

I fully inderstand those who do settle, everyone's circumstances are different, but I do hope more than 50% decline (appreciate you were using that as an illustrative number :-))

I guess the only issue for us is that it's now up to us to take HMRC to court to get our (APN) money back rather than HMRC taking us to court and attempt to get the tax in the first place. If the courts are full, how long will that take :-( Out of interest does anyone know if there's a time limit for the proceedings? i.e. Let's say one of the big schemes has all their paperwork ready to go. The first APN drops on a doormat, someone pays it and then the scheme do whatever they need to do to start proceedings immediately to recover the money. What then, how long do HMRC have to respond? How long will it be before the FTT actually takes place?

It might be piece of string territory but thought I'd ask if anyone knew anyway ...

Oh, and while we're on the subject of daft questions, why did HMRC go for Rangers (or rather Murray Holdings, the company) and not the individuals that worked for the company, as they are with us? Maybe they did, it just didn't hit the news until Rangers themselves got involved. I thought it was always HMRC trying to close Rangers down for an unpaid tax bill (due to it being accounted as EBT's)...

And lastly, does all the gumph from HMRC about Inheritance Tax APN's and all this tax avoidance malarkey signal the end of the road for Tax Planning and Tax Accountants? Surely it's going to get to the point where any kind of planning is considered avoidance, regardless of its legality and therefore the profession will no longer be required?

Apologies for all the questions, most of them probably not relevant to this thread but just a few thoughts!

[jbryce]

There won't be an FTT hearing for each user. Schemes are handled using one or several test/lead cases.

True, but each individual can request an FTT - you are entitled to your day in court.

[StrengthInNumbers]

All in same scheme can just depend on lead case. I know in one scheme where for 2500 contractors, a single FTT case with 3 lead contractors. So point being 20000 or 40000 can be easily finished in 10 or so cases. May be even less as the first cases will start setting precedence and clear the FUD.