APNs Imminent - your help needed

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Surely when HMRC issued Huitson a CN (back in 200x) would be the usage of s58.

The FTTT is Huitson's legal appeal against the CN - though not against the law itself

I don't think you can appeal against a law being there - only the attempting usage of it. But I have to concede, I'm not 100% sure on that point

I am pretty sure you're right. Montpelier weren't able to apply for a JR until someone had actually received CNs. Huitson just happened to be one of the first.

Even if someone does challenge APNs with a JR, I'm not sure it will stop HMRC continuing to roll them out.

[Rob79]

I would tend to agree with centurian.

Action against a law on the statute book but not actually used would seem to have no basis for challenge. Until you see how the intentions of Parliament are interpreted in action, it's difficult (impossible?) to have an argument that a judge can interpret.

I think therefore until an APN is delivered there are no grounds for action.

Is it good news that we don't have long to wait now?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Is it good news that we don't have long to wait now?

I wouldn't have thought so for the thousands who won't be able to pay.

[BrilloPad]

I wouldn't have thought so for the thousands who won't be able to pay.

I am unable to pay. And the sooner this is out of the way the better. I hate my job. Make me bankrupt. The state can support me and my dependants.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Something has been puzzling me

The list of tax avoidance schemes HMRC published contained approximately 1200 SRNs.

HMRC say 43000 taxpayers are in the frame.

That only averages at 36 users per scheme.

[Rob79]

The list of tax avoidance schemes HMRC published contained approximately 1200 SRNs.

HMRC say 43000 taxpayers are in the frame.

That only averages at 36 users per scheme.

Unfortunately that's too simple an analysis.

Example - some film partnerships have in excess of 800 members.

Some bespoke structures have perhaps 1 person or up to maybe 6 or 7.

The 43,000 number is nonsense. It's just a newspaper piece of fiction. Same as the 1,200 schemes.

The real calculation should be how many users of DOTAS registered schemes, not already settled, are still waiting settlement?

Our own analysis (admittedly with a fair chunk of guesswork) says that of the 1200 schemes, perhaps 800 are "real". We also think that just our sector of the market has perhaps in excess of 50,000 users of those schemes. Add in the contractor numbers and you start to get real.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Unfortunately that's too simple an analysis.

Example - some film partnerships have in excess of 800 members.

Some bespoke structures have perhaps 1 person or up to maybe 6 or 7.

The 43,000 number is nonsense. It's just a newspaper piece of fiction. Same as the 1,200 schemes.

The real calculation should be how many users of DOTAS registered schemes, not already settled, are still waiting settlement?

Our own analysis (admittedly with a fair chunk of guesswork) says that of the 1200 schemes, perhaps 800 are "real". We also think that just our sector of the market has perhaps in excess of 50,000 users of those schemes. Add in the contractor numbers and you start to get real.

So, the total number of open DOTAS cases is probably a lot more than 43,000. Possibly as high as 100,000.

Why do you think HMRC have under-reported this? Does the 43,000 perhaps represent just the target areas they want to crack down on?

PS.

If you add up the numbers in the table on page 7 of the consultation they come to 42,800 (the 43,000 number).

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

[Rob79]

So, the total number of open DOTAS cases is probably a lot more than 43,000. Possibly as high as 100,000.

Why do you think HMRC have under-reported this? Does the 43,000 perhaps represent just the target areas they want to crack down on?

PS.

If you add up the numbers in the table on page 7 of the consultation they come to 42,800 (the 43,000 number).

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

It's because the HMRC numbers include only those cases being actively worked. For example, a lead case on a film scheme might have say 200 partners but there might be between 3 and 30 partnerships. Only the lead case is quoted in the numbers.

My personal opinion is that to quote outstanding cases of perhaps 2x, 3x 5x, the original number would cause those overseeing HMRC to be severely criticized and their efficiency (lack of) hel;d to account.

It's all politics to MP's and the Civil Service neither of whom have any idea how this impacts real people doing commercial jobs.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

It's because the HMRC numbers include only those cases being actively worked. For example, a lead case on a film scheme might have say 200 partners but there might be between 3 and 30 partnerships. Only the lead case is quoted in the numbers.

My personal opinion is that to quote outstanding cases of perhaps 2x, 3x 5x, the original number would cause those overseeing HMRC to be severely criticized and their efficiency (lack of) hel;d to account.

It's all politics to MP's and the Civil Service neither of whom have any idea how this impacts real people doing commercial jobs.

If what you are saying is correct then HMRC have lied about the impact of the proposals.

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

Summary of Impacts
This measure and the Autumn Statement 2013 follower measure will require Payment Notices to be issued to around 43,000 taxpayers involved in avoidance schemes currently under dispute with HMRC.

[Rob79]

If what you are saying is correct then HMRC have lied about the impact of the proposals.

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

Summary of Impacts
This measure and the Autumn Statement 2013 follower measure will require Payment Notices to be issued to around 43,000 taxpayers involved in avoidance schemes currently under dispute with HMRC.

Lies, damned lies and statistics