Using a scheme (Non DOTAS) in the last 1-2 years - Help needed to rectify

[MrO666]

Based on facts and only referring to a proper loan based EBT scheme, HMRC has ToAA to fight with. That is definitely not a sure shot win for HMRC. For starters no tax benefit in using an EBT offshore if EBT onshore was legal (Rangers etc) and thus no ToAA. many other arguments exist.

Secondly I don't believe that everyone is corrupt. I believe in judicial system and even HMRC and will pay what will be found legally due. Current actions are politically driven. Judicial system will make a fair decision in due course. HMRC will appeal and so will we if we lose. An individual cannot fight HMRC but an association of 1000s surely can. Truly strength is in numbers.

In my view above only applies to scheme run until dec 2010 and worst case before GAAR came into play in 2013. Anyone in scheme after Apr 2013 should settle. (Although what worries me is that soon HMRC will call ltd company a scheme and all hell will break lose again - I hope that does not happen).

I like you're idea of an association of 1000's, but with the best will in the world it won't happen.

HMRC may well loose a few cases, but they will not drop the issue, it's worth far too much to them in both time and in public perception. HMRC and the Government cannot be seen to let tax avoiders (that's what we all are so don't kid yourself) off the hook lightly. It would be political and professional suicide for all involved, that's why I believe this will run and run until in the end HMRC will win, one way or another. Even if it's just time, once people have paid APN's then it will be left squarely with the individual or scheme provider (where they exist) to chase HMRC and to try and push them towards a tribunal, HMRC will just put everything on ice. I suspect that they will no doubt try every delaying tactic that can to push off court dates, thus increasing the cost to the individual or scheme user.

Every single scheme will need to be challenged in court, and HMRC will defend each and every one of them. I'm sure that in 10 years time there will still be a huge amount of people who paid APN's but yet still don't have closure..........quality time with my friends and family is more important to me than spending my time becoming bitter about this.

Anyone who genuinely hand on heart thought that keeping 85% of invoice value was 100% above board needs a reality check. We all knew is was slightly grey (deny it if you want) and we're all responsible for our own decisions..........c'est la vie.

[MercladUK]

I like you're idea of an association of 1000's, but with the best will in the world it won't happen.

HMRC may well loose a few cases, but they will not drop the issue, it's worth far too much to them in both time and in public perception. HMRC and the Government cannot be seen to let tax avoiders (that's what we all are so don't kid yourself) off the hook lightly. It would be political and professional suicide for all involved, that's why I believe this will run and run until in the end HMRC will win, one way or another. Even if it's just time, once people have paid APN's then it will be left squarely with the individual or scheme provider (where they exist) to chase HMRC and to try and push them towards a tribunal, HMRC will just put everything on ice. I suspect that they will no doubt try every delaying tactic that can to push off court dates, thus increasing the cost to the individual or scheme user.

Every single scheme will need to be challenged in court, and HMRC will defend each and every one of them. I'm sure that in 10 years time there will still be a huge amount of people who paid APN's but yet still don't have closure..........quality time with my friends and family is more important to me than spending my time becoming bitter about this.

Anyone who genuinely hand on heart thought that keeping 85% of invoice value was 100% above board needs a reality check. We all knew is was slightly grey (deny it if you want) and we're all responsible for our own decisions..........c'est la vie.

Sounds like you really need/want to justify to yourself and others that you chose the right decision in settling.

Now enough of your voyeurism

[MrO666]

Sounds like you really need/want to justify to yourself and others that you chose the right decision in settling.

Now enough of your voyeurism

Not looking to justify anything my friend, i'm done and dusted and that's that, so just offering my thoughts on things really. I really did look into things in depth before sorting this though, so it was far from a knee jerk reaction and just settling. Had lengthy discussions with the tax avoidance specialist at Grant Thornton as well as others, and the answer was always the same. Fight all you want, but in reality they've got you by the balls as they have infinite funds to fight you, so they can beat you into submission without ever actually needing to win the argument.

I just can't understand how some people truly believe that this will all suddenly go away and everything will be OK, or that one or two defeats will make HMRC pack up and go home. Anyone with that thinking has clearly never been involved with HMRC before, that's all i'm saying.

[MercladUK]

Not looking to justify anything my friend, i'm done and dusted and that's that, so just offering my thoughts on things really. I really did look into things in depth before sorting this though, so it was far from a knee jerk reaction and just settling. Had lengthy discussions with the tax avoidance specialist at Grant Thornton as well as others, and the answer was always the same. Fight all you want, but in reality they've got you by the balls as they have infinite funds to fight you, so they can beat you into submission without ever actually needing to win the argument.

I just can't understand how some people truly believe that this will all suddenly go away and everything will be OK, or that one or two defeats will make HMRC pack up and go home. Anyone with that thinking has clearly never been involved with HMRC before, that's all i'm saying.

Are you just seeing what you want to see? No one on these forums believe its just going to go away, its quite clear you are not reading post on here.

Some people have no choice but to fight, some people don't just want to quit and settle and others believe this is worth the fight. Yes we may well lose the fight, but I would rather go down trying than to retreat and surrender like the French!

[MrO666]

Not looking to justify anything my friend, i'm done and dusted and that's that, so just offering my thoughts on things really. I really did look into things in depth before sorting this though, so it was far from a knee jerk reaction and just settling. Had lengthy discussions with the tax avoidance specialist at Grant Thornton as well as others, and the answer was always the same. Fight all you want, but in reality they've got you by the balls as they have infinite funds to fight you, so they can beat you into submission without ever actually needing to win the argument.

[B]I just can't understand how some people truly believe that this will all suddenly go away and everything will be OK, or that one or two defeats will make HMRC pack up and go home. Anyone with that thinking has clearly never been involved with HMRC before, that's all i'm saying.

Are you just seeing what you want to see? No one on these forums believe its just going to go away, its quite clear you are not reading post on here.

Some people have no choice but to fight, some people don't just want to quit and settle and others believe this is worth the fight. Yes we may well lose the fight, but I would rather go down trying than to retreat and surrender like the French!

Not looking to argue with anyone or such

I was always taught in life and in business to pick your fights, and this certainly isn't one for me. Nothing to do with anything other than being realistic and not getting caught up in throwing money into a "fighting fund" which is doing nothing other than lining the pockets of tax specialists and barristers.

I completely appreciate that some have no choice and I do feel for them, however i'm going to stick my neck out here and say they had the money in the first place and have no doubt spent it all on things which are now worthless. That's fine, but don't start moaning when it's time to pay the fiddler that's all.

I'm as pissed at this whole scenario as everyone else on here is, however my approach has been different to most others, that's all.

[StrengthInNumbers]

Associations have been formed and have 1000s in them already. HMRC has won and coming years they will say avoidance stopped blah blah but that does not mean all schemes have to fail. Those that will pass legally, HMRC will have to agree they were not illegal.
Not until now and never we will see an HMRC Spotlight on Rangers case - apart from HMRC winning which I very much doubt.

[MercladUK]

[QUOTE=MrO666;2078688]

Not looking to argue with anyone or such

I was always taught in life and in business to pick your fights, and this certainly isn't one for me. Nothing to do with anything other than being realistic and not getting caught up in throwing money into a "fighting fund" which is doing nothing other than lining the pockets of tax specialists and barristers.

I completely appreciate that some have no choice and I do feel for them, however i'm going to stick my neck out here and say they had the money in the first place and have no doubt spent it all on things which are now worthless. That's fine, but don't start moaning when it's time to pay the fiddler that's all.

I'm as pissed at this whole scenario as everyone else on here is, however my approach has been different to most others, that's all.

oh dear me.....

Why are you posting in these forums if A, you have settled and B, you post crap like this?

Appreciate you have paid and are settled, now please do the honourable thing and post in general

[regron]

[QUOTE=MrO666;2078688]

however i'm going to stick my neck out here and say they had the money in the first place and have no doubt spent it all on things which are now worthless. That's fine, but don't start moaning when it's time to pay the fiddler that's all.

I'm as pissed at this whole scenario as everyone else on here is, however my approach has been different to most others, that's all.

So maybe I am missing something here, but what was the point in joining such a scheme if you just put the additional money aside, just in case HMRC came knocking on the door. What did that achieve and how long was you going to hold on to it until you was happy to spend it on such worthless things ?

Maybe you reinvested it and therefore have the profits from that to successfully pay them off and still live comfortably, which I am sure we would all think about doing if we had such an amount of funds hanging around. Also, don't forget, grey area or not, a lot of us were led to believe everything was above board and ticked ok by the revenue. Call it naivety if you like, but that's how it was. Well for me anyway. Nobody (including your Grant Thornton) saw any of this coming !!

[webberg]

For starters no tax benefit in using an EBT offshore if EBT onshore was legal (Rangers etc) and thus no ToAA. many other arguments exist.

(Although what worries me is that soon HMRC will call ltd company a scheme and all hell will break lose again - I hope that does not happen).

Depends how you define "tax benefit". The definition used in DOTAS is "tax advantage" and includes the deferring of a liability or a timing advantage. If (and I accept it is "if" at the moment) the "loan" can be seen as either income or at least is a loan to be repaid from a trust distribution in due course, then it fits the description.

This obsession with "it's legal and therefore it must be effective" is simply incorrect. A succession of cases has shown that the Court will look at the facts and apply the law to those facts and to a large degree ignore the documents, substance over form. Aside from cases of blatant fraud or "missing trader" cases, I've never read of HMRC suggesting that avoidance schemes are illegal. They may believe and say that individuals are dishonest, perhaps in how they told people how structures worked for example, but they rarely suggest illegality.

Why?

Because it's irrelevant. They don't need to go that far. The hurdle to prove illegality is higher than that needed for tax avoidance to be proven, so why bother.

Please, please, please, do not assume that because your scheme is legal (and how do you know until a judge says so) it is safe!!

HMRC has already tried to say that a Ltd Co is tax planning. They failed. They promised "corrective" legislation following that loss but it's not appeared as yet.

[webberg]

[QUOTE=regron;2078726]

So maybe I am missing something here, but what was the point in joining such a scheme if you just put the additional money aside, just in case HMRC came knocking on the door. What did that achieve and how long was you going to hold on to it until you was happy to spend it on such worthless things ?
!

If you approach HMRC for time to pay (APN, final demand, whatever) having used a "scheme", almost the first question they will ask you is "what did you do with the money(tax) you saved?".

If the answer is that you bought a second home, paid off a mortgage, bought an asset, etc, HMRC will expect you to sell/use the asset to pay them.

If the answer is that you invested it in a business or the stock market or something that can be redeemed, then they will give you time to pay that does not risk that investment over much.

If the answer is of the George Best kind, "I spent 90% on wine, women and song and wasted the rest" then expect little sympathy and HMRC will play hard ball on instalments.

The underlying assumption is that anybody who did a tax scheme knew what they were doing and protestations that you were misled or lied to will cut no ice.

Ignorance is not a defence.