Groups - forming, storming, norming, reforming

[jbryce]

I'd certainly welcome some sort of group where I could, as a minimum share and receive advice, but ideally could mount some sort of challenge.

I'm currently trying to reach a conclusion in relation to the Sandfield/Consulting Overseas scheme and it certainly feels as though HMRC can do whatever they please and I have little option but to pay what they decide is owing.

Following the Boyle case, a quick summary would be:

in addition to tax on the monies received, HMRC are applying tax based on anti-avoidance rules referred to as Transfer Of Assets Abroad (TOAA) that amounts to about 9% of the gross invoiced amounts (which they've estimated) plus interest and other penalties.


All in all, this amounts to roughly 75% of what I received, which I personally feel is excessive.

While I appreciate that each scheme has its differences, from what I've seen of the Boyle case, which forms the basis of HMRC's judgement in my case, those differences may not matter much. The judge pretty much ignored the mechanics of the scheme, deeming them artificial and instead sighted the obvious gain Mr Boyle recieved (in my case the net take-home was roughly the same as a limited company outside IR35). He also agreed to HMRC's request that the TOAA rule could be applied as the monies had gone via the IOM.

If this stance is taken accross the board then pretty much all the schemes, at least the ones I know of, will leave the uses in pretty much the same boat as I now find myself.

And finally, with regards to mis-selling I feel there is certainly a case to answer there.

Without a doubt, the Sandfield/Consulting Overseas scheme came with a sales pitch and accompanying QC opinion - this final piece being what convinced my everything was above board. I believe a positive QC opinion has been a common element in many of the schemes, however HMRC opinion and subsequent FTT rulings would suggest this opinion was simply not worth the paper it was written on leaving me having paid a considerable fees for advice that has subsequently proved worthless and considerably worse off than if I had worked via a limited company.

Needless to say, if something does come together I'd be more than interested.

We all consider groups to be a means of fighting HMRC. Perhaps that battle is lost - maybe time to examine going after the promoters.?

[StrengthInNumbers]

Boyle is for scaring

Boyle's scheme was shambles - FX never existed, Loan were paid in GBP and settled within a year. HMRC can say what they want to, out of court but if your scheme was not based on depreciation of FX, it stops their. Even if the scheme was based on depreciation of FX and FX EXISTED AND SOLD/BROUGHT AT MARKET FX RATEs, you have a strong case.

In many cases where the scheme was Contractor an Employee, IOM based employer and payments as salary and loan - schemes are completely different to Boyle but HMRC has only Boyle to hang on to and just doing that. In Loan based contractor scheme to be proper, it has to have proper loan documents etc and executed properly.

Above said, ToAA is the new weapon from HMRC as they lost the "EBT loans are not loans" argument. At the moment, we have to wait and see how ToAA story unfolds. What could be great is if heads of groups get some clear advice on ToAA together - only courts will make a final court but independent assessment of how strong HMRC's case is will let us make better decisions. I met an independent accountant who was of the opinion that ToAA case is very strong for HMRC but scheme providers are ready to go to Tribunal PUTTING their own money on line saying ToAA does not apply. Thus at this point in time, paying an APN is a better option then settling. Only time will clear the situation regarding ToAA.

HMRC will be stupid to use Boyle and issue follower notice as that will be a great tool to win JR against HMRC

[TheDandy]

Thus at this point in time, paying an APN is a better option then settling.

If you can afford to pay the APN.

[cojak]

I'd certainly welcome some sort of group where I could, as a minimum share and receive advice, but ideally could mount some sort of challenge.

I'm currently trying to reach a conclusion in relation to the Sandfield/Consulting Overseas scheme and it certainly feels as though HMRC can do whatever they please and I have little option but to pay what they decide is owing.

Following the Boyle case, a quick summary would be:

in addition to tax on the monies received, HMRC are applying tax based on anti-avoidance rules referred to as Transfer Of Assets Abroad (TOAA) that amounts to about 9% of the gross invoiced amounts (which they've estimated) plus interest and other penalties.


All in all, this amounts to roughly 75% of what I received, which I personally feel is excessive.

While I appreciate that each scheme has its differences, from what I've seen of the Boyle case, which forms the basis of HMRC's judgement in my case, those differences may not matter much. The judge pretty much ignored the mechanics of the scheme, deeming them artificial and instead sighted the obvious gain Mr Boyle recieved (in my case the net take-home was roughly the same as a limited company outside IR35). He also agreed to HMRC's request that the TOAA rule could be applied as the monies had gone via the IOM.

If this stance is taken accross the board then pretty much all the schemes, at least the ones I know of, will leave the uses in pretty much the same boat as I now find myself.

And finally, with regards to mis-selling I feel there is certainly a case to answer there.

Without a doubt, the Sandfield/Consulting Overseas scheme came with a sales pitch and accompanying QC opinion - this final piece being what convinced my everything was above board. I believe a positive QC opinion has been a common element in many of the schemes, however HMRC opinion and subsequent FTT rulings would suggest this opinion was simply not worth the paper it was written on leaving me having paid a considerable fees for advice that has subsequently proved worthless and considerably worse off than if I had worked via a limited company.

Needless to say, if something does come together I'd be more than interested.

Just to make clear - you need to go back to the Sandfield/Consulting Overseas scheme and find out who has already formed a group. http://forums.contractoruk.com/hmrc-...as-victim.html

If there is no group already created then YOU need to create the group. PM convict/The Dandy/turnover for help on how to create your group.

Posters like Saleos/Rob79 DO NOT form and run groups, Saleos is commissioned by the group to provide professional help. Rob79 does not do that as his company does not do that aspect of work (his company chases after the providers I believe).

You are going to have to help yourselves guys as it doesn't appear as if anyone else from the scheme will...