How are you settling?

[webberg]

"Double that for a loss"
No don't need to as generally with HMRC cases it is agreed in start that no party with claim costs.

Penalties: Did people in Boyle case had to pay penalties?
Or costs for HMRC?
Is HMRC paying Rangers costs?
As also in the link I posted for you the other day. Based on professional advice we joined the scheme and had no other way to know whether it will work or not.
Can you post a link to case which shows HMRC can impose penalties in these situations?

In my specific case have done my due diligence and am yet to find a legal case which shows the scheme will fail. It is a fair shot it might be successful and I want to have that shot. Sums involved are not small and I don't want or recommend anyone to rush into settlement and forgo any chance of getting money back. Especially as settlement opportunity is not offering any benefits.

AML I am not related, so am not aware.

Look at Acornwood.

Perfectly legal scheme found to be ineffective.

HMRC are asking for penalty questionnaires to be completed right now.

I think we have to draw a line on penalty as we have different views. I hope you are correct in your view.

[flamel]

The poll should probably have included "would settle at a % (of the amount HMRC think is due)"

This would cover the large percentage of people who couldn't pay the APNs that are coming as they would be wiped out. For these people, it really doesn't matter if penalties, interest or any other charge were levied as they wouldn't be able to pay them either.

Therefore the choices are much smaller:

1 - Fight to the death; or
2 - Throw your hand into the air and go bankrupt, taking all open years into consideration.

Given the above slim choices, then a few grand to fight is a no-brainer. Who knows, the court action may even be successful in the long run, it's happened before.

[webberg]

The poll should probably have included "would settle at a % (of the amount HMRC think is due)"

This would cover the large percentage of people who couldn't pay the APNs that are coming as they would be wiped out. For these people, it really doesn't matter if penalties, interest or any other charge were levied as they wouldn't be able to pay them either.

Therefore the choices are much smaller:

1 - Fight to the death; or
2 - Throw your hand into the air and go bankrupt, taking all open years into consideration.

Given the above slim choices, then a few grand to fight is a no-brainer. Who knows, the court action may even be successful in the long run, it's happened before.

Some acute observations.

My view is that HMRC will not move from their settlement numbers until Murray Group goes through another iteration. If that is an HMRC loss (good chance of that), then it will be a time to approach HMRC with an offer.

What would the offer be?

Back of an envelope:

Loan value less say 20% for expenses assuming it's income from a self employment.
Taxed at marginal rate less a credit for foreign tax due (but not levied) of say 10%.
Interest, yes.
Penalty, no.

So for £100 loan in 2008, that's £(100-20) x 40% = 32, less £10 foreign tax = £22. add interest of perhaps £6.

So I pay around 28% of loan value all up.

No NIC as I think there's a good argument that assessments would out of time.

How many would settle at that?

[Not Losing Any Sleep]

Some acute observations.

My view is that HMRC will not move from their settlement numbers until Murray Group goes through another iteration. If that is an HMRC loss (good chance of that), then it will be a time to approach HMRC with an offer.

What would the offer be?

Back of an envelope:

Loan value less say 20% for expenses assuming it's income from a self employment.
Taxed at marginal rate less a credit for foreign tax due (but not levied) of say 10%.
Interest, yes.
Penalty, no.

So for £100 loan in 2008, that's £(100-20) x 40% = 32, less £10 foreign tax = £22. add interest of perhaps £6.

So I pay around 28% of loan value all up.

No NIC as I think there's a good argument that assessments would out of time.

How many would settle at that?

If they lose Murray Group and don't get leave to appeal then why would you pay them 1 penny

[webberg]

If they lose Murray Group and don't get leave to appeal then why would you pay them 1 penny

Because there are enough differences between the Murray Group facts and the sort of arrangements seen in many offshore loan schemes to be able to say that an adverse decision should be limited to those facts?

HMRC does this all the time. Find a case, run it, win and apply to all, lose and say it's limited.

Unfortunately in the case of contractor schemes this is very possible.

For example, In Murray, they did not attack the mechanics of the money flow. They did not argue that in reality the cash went from Rangers FC to player without passing through the various other parts of the scheme. Given that this is a soft element in many schemes and always picked upon, I suspect they looked and could make make no mischief there.

Are you confident that the parties you contracted with can PROVE an audit trail of money moving in the right way?

Are you SURE that money went from company to trust?

Bear in mind that some of the entities have disappeared and therefore this becomes a test of can you convince a judge that in a tax avoidance scheme, it is reasonable to assume that the money flowed correctly when a look at other schemes shows some shocking execution.

If that cannot be done, you have one, very important, difference already.

Don't get me wrong. If HMRC lose Murray it will put them on the back foot for perhaps a year, maybe 2. They will however bring another case. And another and another until they have their smoking gun.

[flamel]

Some acute observations.

My view is that HMRC will not move from their settlement numbers until Murray Group goes through another iteration. If that is an HMRC loss (good chance of that), then it will be a time to approach HMRC with an offer.

What would the offer be?

Back of an envelope:

Loan value less say 20% for expenses assuming it's income from a self employment.
Taxed at marginal rate less a credit for foreign tax due (but not levied) of say 10%.
Interest, yes.
Penalty, no.

So for £100 loan in 2008, that's £(100-20) x 40% = 32, less £10 foreign tax = £22. add interest of perhaps £6.

So I pay around 28% of loan value all up.

No NIC as I think there's a good argument that assessments would out of time.

How many would settle at that?

I like the thinking. However, given that HMRC want around 40% of the loan value as tax, then 28% seems like a good deal for them based on their losing EBT cases. This is still going to be far too high (even though there's a discount of 30% (ish) ) to entice a settlement. If they could reduce that to, say, 20% of the loan value, then there would be a strong incentive to settle, without prejudice, so as to draw a line in the sand.
"Without prejudice" as in not agreeing at all with the retrospective tax laws or agreeing that EBT loans are subject to any tax at all. But at 20%, then there is an incentive to cough up some cash, gives both sides certainty and would probably clear up the whole debacle in a very short space of time. This would probably boost the public purse immediately at little expense.
As has been commented on before by a well known QC, a percentage of something certain is better than nothing.

[LandRover]

I like the thinking. However, given that HMRC want around 40% of the loan value as tax, then 28% seems like a good deal for them based on their losing EBT cases. This is still going to be far too high (even though there's a discount of 30% (ish) ) to entice a settlement. If they could reduce that to, say, 20% of the loan value, then there would be a strong incentive to settle, without prejudice, so as to draw a line in the sand.
"Without prejudice" as in not agreeing at all with the retrospective tax laws or agreeing that EBT loans are subject to any tax at all. But at 20%, then there is an incentive to cough up some cash, gives both sides certainty and would probably clear up the whole debacle in a very short space of time. This would probably boost the public purse immediately at little expense.
As has been commented on before by a well known QC, a percentage of something certain is better than nothing.

Complete agreement with what you state concerning settlement at a 20%, there would be a real incentive to draw line under whole mess, certainly for me. But I feel the push for this has to come from the government, that HMRC have no real appetite for settlement if they keep receiving the additional funding from the Treasury for resources.

[StrengthInNumbers]

How are you settling?

In our case can prove AUDIT TRAIL and 100% money moved from company to trust. In fact an accountant went to IoM just to ensure all this was being done.

[zimbtar]

The poll should probably have included "would settle at a % (of the amount HMRC think is due)"

This would cover the large percentage of people who couldn't pay the APNs that are coming as they would be wiped out. For these people, it really doesn't matter if penalties, interest or any other charge were levied as they wouldn't be able to pay them either.

Therefore the choices are much smaller:

1 - Fight to the death; or
2 - Throw your hand into the air and go bankrupt, taking all open years into consideration.

Given the above slim choices, then a few grand to fight is a no-brainer. Who knows, the court action may even be successful in the long run, it's happened before.

For those of us that cannot pay - (Not that I have lived a lavish lifestyle or anything frivolous) - or are not prepared to enter into an oppressive Time to Pay agreement, what then?
It really isn't a matter of choice at all.
Will a Judge really make us bankrupt to service a "debt" that is

a) over 7 years old (7 8 & 9)
b) Not chased AT ALL over that period

etc etc etc.
It is all relative I know. My "debt" would be affordable to others, but is way out of my ability to even find 20% of. Things have happened in the almost 10 years that HMRC have had. Not all positive.

[chr16v]

what if you cant pay within the 2 years HMRC offer?? what then?

For those of us that cannot pay - (Not that I have lived a lavish lifestyle or anything frivolous) - or are not prepared to enter into an oppressive Time to Pay agreement, what then?
It really isn't a matter of choice at all.
Will a Judge really make us bankrupt to service a "debt" that is

a) over 7 years old (7 8 & 9)
b) Not chased AT ALL over that period

etc etc etc.
It is all relative I know. My "debt" would be affordable to others, but is way out of my ability to even find 20% of. Things have happened in the almost 10 years that HMRC have had. Not all positive.

i am totally with you on this point Zimbtar.

I have a settlement calculation that would take me 10-12 years to save up to pay off based on what i have left over after paying for the family essentials each month. I cant take more credit (a loan) because i am already maxed out according to my experian report and my mortgage is in joint names with my wife, where there is some equity.

I understand the HMRC TTP offer of up to 2 years can only be assumed if you can prove you are able to pay the money back in this time.

My question is: What happens if its clear as day that you cant afford to pay it back in 2 years?? Would i be exptected by a court to sell the family home, what type of forced action should a genuine PAYE employee expect to experience in the pursuit of this money?

It seems like soul destroying dark times in my life are on the horizon. I wonder what the full force of not being able to pay in 2 years looks like?