Settlement Opportunity

[foobar]

Certainly the fact that they have extended the settlement time period supports the above two comments and suggests that fewer people have settled than they expected and they've got a bit of a mess on their hands.

Could it be more people are settling than they thought??

[EBTContractor]

Could it be more people are settling than they thought??

I think the very opposite - IF lots of people had settled these ludicrous claims, APNs would have been issued by now.

Even with an APN through my letter box, for me it would be an 'all or nothing' position, nothing to lose other than a tribunal case.

I couldn't give a rat's arse about being named for being a user of one of these products that HMRC are now retrospectively having second thoughts about.

"Oh how I wish I could get back my book cost on some bad stock picks", or "I will reclaim from Lloyds Bank the 50 quid I spent on beer over the weekend", 20-20 vision hindsight and all of that.

I think this whole scaremongering/FUD/APN strategy will backfire monumentally, how on earth are HMRC going to be able to handle tens of thousands of contractors and companies they wrongly accuse of simply paying the tax they had to?

Let's say 10% pay up following an APN, or even 50%, the admin burden, resurrection of year old cases, it will all simply undermine HMRC's FUD strategy.

Cost/benefit of pursuing contractors on tiny three digit day rates makes no financial sense.

[Wibble1]

Not 1 APN has been issue to Contractors using EBT's

Could it be more people are settling than they thought??

I have spoken with a few people that are close to all this. Either independent payroll solution consultants or those involved with managing solutions today. HMRC have not issued 1 APN to contractors using previously schemes being investigated retrospective for EBT loans. Any APN issued to date has been to the likes of Gary Barlow etc. Not 1 case by HMRC has been won against a contractor EBT loan scheme. Cases they have won are not EBT loan specific.

[EBTContractor]

Any APN issued to date has been to the likes of Gary Barlow etc.

What about Jimmy Carr?

Or was he stupid enough to pay up voluntarily?

I guess celebs have a brand to maintain.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Not surprisingly, HMRC have gone after the easier, and more lucrative, targets to start with. High net worth individuals who can probably easily pay APNs.

Getting money out of contractors won't be such a breeze.

[regron]

Not surprisingly, HMRC have gone after the easier, and more lucrative, targets to start with. High net worth individuals who can probably easily pay APNs.

This also ties in with the House of Lords requesting a proof of concept within 6 months !!!!! All fabricated nonsense !!!!

[MrsB1974]

Does anyone know who the trustees are/were for ASIOM? I believe it used to be Walbrook who I think are now owned by Barclays. Can anyone confirm? I have also posted this on ASIOM thread.

I was with ASIOM in 2006 so I was interested to know too. Here's what Google says... definitely some big names involved (Hermes, Deloitte, Barclays, etc)

May 2007:
Barclays to acquire offshore fiduciary Walbrook Group | Private Equity Wire
https://www.pehub.com/2007/05/hermes...albrook-group/

June 2014
Barclays puts its fiduciary services business up for sale

[AngryMan]

Cost/benefit of pursuing contractors on tiny three digit day rates makes no financial sense.

It doesn't make sense to spend £100k chasing a £50k bill but that is what they will do. No two ways about it.

Its about winning for them not what is best for the government coffers.

[centurian]

It doesn't make sense to spend £100k chasing a £50k bill but that is what they will do. No two ways about it.

Its about winning for them not what is best for the government coffers.

It's more about the deterrent effect. Every win yields many times more in indirect gains with people deciding to get out of similar schemes - the higher profile the better.

The main reason why mass marketed schemes flourished in the first place was because HMRC basically stopped chasing schemes where the cost was more than the benefit.

Therefore, as a scheme provider - you didn't necessarily need to make sure the scheme worked - just needed to make it complicated enough such that HMRC wouldn't bother taking it to court.

[StrengthInNumbers]

And so the government pendulum swings from one extreme to another. Can't they be sensible about it? But why should they be! One lazy bugger said don't follow to complicated and another bugger now said lets follow everything.