Joint action on APN

[webberg]

I've been looking at the threads here and the diverse opinion and actions on APN in particular. I have a proposal.

For background I've recently left a job providing tax services to people involved in tax avoidance. I am looking at doing something else but for the moment have some time available. I'd be happy to declare some validation in due course.

I'm thinking about whether it would be possible to launch a JR against APN's issued across a number of schemes. In other words is there sufficient common ground to permit this legally. If the answer is "yes" then it might solve the problem of some schemes not having enough contributions to launch their own action.

The idea would be to identify a suitable law firm (confident I have that covered) and to collect enough contributions to fund an initial view after I've got a suitable quote. That quote would have to be based on a paper that summarises the schemes in question. That is the bit I will add.

Contributions would be collected and held by a third party lawyer. They would be paid to the law firm or me only on submissions of a suitable invoice for work done. In the event that there is no global cause of action then whatever is left in the fund is returned. If there is action then a call for further funds and more members is required, probably with some form of discount for the initial founders.

A steering committee is required to help communicate.

Be realistic in your expectation. A JR will most likely be unsuccessful but will create a delay. If successful then the delay will be extended. It will not solve the problem of the liability which still needs to be settled by agreement or litigation.

Happy to supply an email address for interested parties so that we can judge the numbers and costs.

[lilikins1]

I've been looking at the threads here and the diverse opinion and actions on APN in particular. I have a proposal.

For background I've recently left a job providing tax services to people involved in tax avoidance. I am looking at doing something else but for the moment have some time available. I'd be happy to declare some validation in due course.

I'm thinking about whether it would be possible to launch a JR against APN's issued across a number of schemes. In other words is there sufficient common ground to permit this legally. If the answer is "yes" then it might solve the problem of some schemes not having enough contributions to launch their own action.

The idea would be to identify a suitable law firm (confident I have that covered) and to collect enough contributions to fund an initial view after I've got a suitable quote. That quote would have to be based on a paper that summarises the schemes in question. That is the bit I will add.

Contributions would be collected and held by a third party lawyer. They would be paid to the law firm or me only on submissions of a suitable invoice for work done. In the event that there is no global cause of action then whatever is left in the fund is returned. If there is action then a call for further funds and more members is required, probably with some form of discount for the initial founders.

A steering committee is required to help communicate.

Be realistic in your expectation. A JR will most likely be unsuccessful but will create a delay. If successful then the delay will be extended. It will not solve the problem of the liability which still needs to be settled by agreement or litigation.

Happy to supply an email address for interested parties so that we can judge the numbers and costs.

Hi there had a discussion with Pinsent M last week and they are looking into whether this can be done (one JR across similar schemes)

[webberg]

Hi there had a discussion with Pinsent M last week and they are looking into whether this can be done (one JR across similar schemes)

Thanks for the info. I suspect that they are not alone.

I know one or two of that team, so perhaps I'll give them a call on Monday.

[lilikins1]

Thanks for the info. I suspect that they are not alone.

I know one or two of that team, so perhaps I'll give them a call on Monday.

Any news from Pinsent? i haven't heard back yet. Interesting read from them below

HMRC v An Army of Tax Avoiders

[webberg]

Any news from Pinsent? i haven't heard back yet. Interesting read from them below

HMRC v An Army of Tax Avoiders

No response yet. I'm seeing them tomorrow afternoon.

The article is a re-hash of several that have been doing the rounds in the past 6 to 8 months (indeed I wrote and had published something similar last August if you want to see it).

The core theme is that it's time for HMRC/HMG to announce an amnesty for all tax avoidance ON REASONABLE TERMS.

If you take it and abandon litigation it helps everybody.

If not, then look out for the kitchen sink.

I'll share some possible "progress" on that on a separate thread - don't go thinking that it's likely immediately post election but there are the faintest signs of reasonableness creeping into some fringe areas of HMRC.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

No response yet. I'm seeing them tomorrow afternoon.

The article is a re-hash of several that have been doing the rounds in the past 6 to 8 months (indeed I wrote and had published something similar last August if you want to see it).

The core theme is that it's time for HMRC/HMG to announce an amnesty for all tax avoidance ON REASONABLE TERMS.

If you take it and abandon litigation it helps everybody.

If not, then look out for the kitchen sink.

I'll share some possible "progress" on that on a separate thread - don't go thinking that it's likely immediately post election but there are the faintest signs of reasonableness creeping into some fringe areas of HMRC.

It would be the pragmatic thing to do.

It could be done as a one-off exercise, never to be repeated again.

There are enough mechanisms in place now (APN, FN, GAAR, HRP) to prevent the backlog ever growing on the same scale again. HMRC has no excuses going forward.

Having said that, I'd fall off my chair if there ever was an amnesty.

[lilikins1]

It would be the pragmatic thing to do.

It could be done as a one-off exercise, never to be repeated again.

There are enough mechanisms in place now (APN, FN, GAAR, HRP) to prevent the backlog ever growing on the same scale again. HMRC has no excuses going forward.

Having said that, I'd fall off my chair if there ever was an amnesty.

They need to sort out the tax system. it s a circus. I have worked in several countries and by far this one is the weirdest crap tax system I ve seen. They don't even understand it themselves

[squirrel]

Any news from Pinsent? i haven't heard back yet. Interesting read from them below

HMRC v An Army of Tax Avoiders

Seems to me as though the article has forgotten the biggest group of all, those who have absolutely no means of paying whether they want to or not...

[centurian]

The core theme is that it's time for HMRC/HMG to announce an amnesty for all tax avoidance ON REASONABLE TERMS.

WDRS - the problem is that the majority of the public feel that what is on offer - is already TOO reasonable - i.e. the tax "owed" plus interest - in many cases no penalties.

This is made worse because all the political parties have spent the money that they will get from a "crackdown on tax avoidance" - it's factored into spending plans years in advance.

Even getting a tenner knocked off the bill will cause uproar

I suspect HMRC will only "reduce" if they can show that the bill was never correct in the first place. They have done the sums again and come to a lower figure due to x,y,z etc. - therefore they can show that 100% of the bill is still being paid.

[StrengthInNumbers]

WDRS - the problem is that the majority of the public feel that what is on offer - is already TOO reasonable - i.e. the tax "owed" plus interest - in many cases no penalties.

This is made worse because all the political parties have spent the money that they will get from a "crackdown on tax avoidance" - it's factored into spending plans years in advance.

Even getting a tenner knocked off the bill will cause uproar

I suspect HMRC will only "reduce" if they can show that the bill was never correct in the first place. They have done the sums again and come to a lower figure due to x,y,z etc. - therefore they can show that 100% of the bill is still being paid.

Cooking the books continue....