Rangers Tax Case

[comeonrangers]

It's true that under APN regime HMRC don't need to prove (in advance) whether they are right or wrong in their view of taxability of a scheme, but I believe that, in deciding how to order the APN issuing, they would still have to have some regard for several factors, including:

(1) The requirement to satisfy the House of Lords 'proof of concept' within six months (i.e. before February this year).
(2) The public perception of how well (or badly) they are using their new powers (especially with the General Election due).
(3) Their ability to (legally) recover funds from scheme users unable to pay APNs.

I suspect that the trumpeted APN collection successes up to December last year (as discussed earlier in this thread) scored highly on all of the above factors:

(1) Money was recoverable quickly from a small group of companies and wealthy individuals, and
(2) No significant publicity was incurred, and
(3) There was (almost) no requirement to resort to strong-arm (i.e. legal) collection tactics.

I still believe that these 'favourable' conditions for HMRC will not persist as they work their way down the DOTAS list, so they will need to be careful on the timing of APN issue. (For example, they will not want to be issuing 2,500 APNs in January, February, and March, then finding that they have to initiate legal proceedings against 7,500 individual non-payers in Summer time. They will also not want 7,500 individual taxpayers screaming at their MPs about their lives being wrecked).

I think it's significant that the APN you are expecting to receive is against a company - not an individual. There could be an agenda to target companies first, in the assumption that companies can better afford to pay up quickly.

Please could any individual reading these boards who has received and APN (or a notice of impending issue) let us know - anonymously, of course ...

(BTW - Have you thought of writing to Lin Homer, reminding her of her testimony, and copying your MP & Gauke ?)

Maybe, however there were some basic mistakes in the notices which we have received which would suggest they are chucking mud at the wall rather than sending out APN's on a considered case by case basis. We will see and i will be interested to see if we actually receive the APN within the suggested timeframe which is quickly coming to an end.

[pimpernell]

I'm a Hibs supporter, and so anything Rangers related is normally anathema to me. I've never wanted Rangers to win anything before.

[famousfive]

I'm a Hibs supporter, and so anything Rangers related is normally anathema to me. I've never wanted Rangers to win anything before.

Even in these dark days its nice to see a bit of humour on a thread

[EBTContractor]

Anyone heard if there is any progress on HMRC's appeal?

[lilikins1]

Anyone heard if there is any progress on HMRC's appeal?

Check this out LOL

Taxman will not disclose cost of Rangers case | Herald Scotland

We should join forces with the Rangers followers and put pressure into making HMRC explain what the hell they think they re doing

[webberg]

Check this out LOL

Taxman will not disclose cost of Rangers case | Herald Scotland

We should join forces with the Rangers followers and put pressure into making HMRC explain what the hell they think they re doing

Very difficult to see what is going on. I think the Court of Sessions is still looking for a date/judge, having accepted the appeal. Daily listings of cases come out at very short intervals and HMRC website is not much better.

It is not usual for costs to be declared before a final decision. Once there is one, then perhaps a FoI request would work? Whilst sub judice however knowing how much has been spent might give the other side an advantage, i.e. are they running out of money and if I can extend the process, will they be forced to settle?

Hard to see in this case as HMRC have a bottomless pit of your money and the counterparty is already broke.

[centurian]

It is not usual for costs to be declared before a final decision. Once there is one, then perhaps a FoI request would work? Whilst sub judice however knowing how much has been spent might give the other side an advantage, i.e. are they running out of money and if I can extend the process, will they be forced to settle?

Which is probably a reasonable argument for rejecting an FOI - at this stage.

But they didn't take the easy option - oh, no - they claimed it would take too long to work out, which, if true, means they truly don't have a clue to the costs.

Which means someone should be fired for not having the slightest idea of costs (no-one will be).

Just typical that when they have a relatively easy get-out - they would rather take the option that makes them appear as incompetent.

Perhaps they feel they will lose, so want to keep the total costs permanently buried. Saying it costs too much to collate is an argument they can still lose after the final judgement.

[Boobetty]

FOI limit is £600 and charged at £25 an hour. HMRC said the request would take 3.5 days so refused the request on this basis.

What is laughable is (if you work in public service close your eyes now) that it would take a day at most for an averagely competent private sector worker to compile this data. Factor in the flexi time, tea-breaks, 10-4 day and final salary pension scheme of your average civil servant and no doubt you can massage this to 3.5 days.

In any case they should have this information to hand anyway as part of management information, key performance indicators and the like. These have been part of our working lives for years, justifying our time, using cost centres, etc. etc. If these are also absent then, sorry HMRC, it is game over.

[lilikins1]

They re probably embarrassed about how much it s costing and L for loser keeps coming up for them

[EBTContractor]

Obviously they are hoping that an eventual win means they can bully all EBT users into coughing up.

Anyone know what HMRC's EBT revenue estimation is?