Forthcoming General Election - send a message to the Chancellor NOW ...

[StrengthInNumbers]

I am not worried about popular or not and lawyers can play in court whether retrospective effect or law.
But anyone with common sense should see that this is retrospective. No advisor or client was aware that one will need to pay upfront.
As for just Dotas should have alerted us is like me saying to my clients: it was written on the wall this project will not be successful because layers had leaky abstraction all around and no unit tests were written. I can say that because I know what I am talking about but a lawyer, a marketer, a financier will never see it. Similarly to many it contractors Dotas was just another field on the self assessment taken care of by accountants. Not that we wouldn't have understood it but for the simple fact no one including HMRC drew our attention to it.
If HMRC would have so many would have stopped using the schemes as they did after discovery and enquiry letters.

[DotasScandal]

As for just Dotas should have alerted us is like me saying to my clients: it was written on the wall this project will not be successful because layers had leaky abstraction all around and no unit tests were written. I can say that because I know what I am talking about but a lawyer, a marketer, a financier will never see it. Similarly to many it contractors Dotas was just another field on the self assessment taken care of by accountants. Not that we wouldn't have understood it but for the simple fact no one including HMRC drew our attention to it.
If HMRC would have so many would have stopped using the schemes as they did after discovery and enquiry letters.

Spot on.
And like I wrote here earlier: it is even worse that that, because the DOTAS srn could give the illusion of tacit HMRC approval that us law-abiding, non-tax specialist, average people were looking for.
Whether it was HMRC's intention from the onset is debatable, but in retrospect, it is pretty clear that DOTAS has been used to trap us.
If HMRC had wanted to have people drop from the schemes, a simple warning letter would have been enough to scare most away.

Instead they sat on their hands for 10 years watching as more and more were lured into their honeytrap.

[webberg]

I am not worried about popular or not and lawyers can play in court whether retrospective effect or law.
But anyone with common sense should see that this is retrospective. No advisor or client was aware that one will need to pay upfront.
As for just Dotas should have alerted us is like me saying to my clients: it was written on the wall this project will not be successful because layers had leaky abstraction all around and no unit tests were written. I can say that because I know what I am talking about but a lawyer, a marketer, a financier will never see it. Similarly to many it contractors Dotas was just another field on the self assessment taken care of by accountants. Not that we wouldn't have understood it but for the simple fact no one including HMRC drew our attention to it.
If HMRC would have so many would have stopped using the schemes as they did after discovery and enquiry letters.

Playing devil's advocate for a while:

If you were an employee, you pay tax when you get paid. If you are self employed, you pay tax twice a year. If you operate via a company, the company pays PAYE etc as above and CT in instalments of between 2 and 4 a year.

In the situation of most of the EBT/loan type schemes, funds were received with NO tax deducted.

Would it have been reasonable to assume that some tax would be due?

(I know you were told it was "compliant", "registered", "endorsed by Counsel" - all of which mean nothing).

If the thought was that tax might be due but only after an argument, at the time that was valid but is now what APN seeks to reverse.

If the liability in dispute had been settled before mid 2014, no APN would be payable.

I'm not trying to defend HMRC action or inaction, nor judge why people chose one method of payment over another, nor blame people for being taken in by slick snake oil salesmen. I'm trying to point out that you all have a situation to deal with and you need to be realistic in how you address it.

This is why I don't support JR actions against APN's. It's not realistic to expect that this part of HMG policy will be reversed. It's in line with the opinion of perhaps 95% of the tax paying population, appears to be "fair"and matches the rules in other parts of the world.

Better to accept that it's a lost argument and move on to resolving the central issue.

Like I said - a personal opinion.

[malvolio]

Spot on.
And like I wrote here earlier: it is even worse that that, because the DOTAS srn could give the illusion of tacit HMRC approval that us law-abiding, non-tax specialist, average people were looking for.
Whether it was HMRC's intention from the onset is debatable, but in retrospect, it is pretty clear that DOTAS has been used to trap us.
If HMRC had wanted to have people drop from the schemes, a simple warning letter would have been enough to scare most away.

Instead they sat on their hands for 10 years watching as more and more were lured into their honeytrap.

Two things slightly wrong with that view. Firstly clear warnings were given in 2008 that all DOTAS and other avoidance schemes would be looked at to verify their tax position. Secondly, HMRC do not have infinite resources and followed a prioritised list; the whole point of the original 2008 statement was to establish the start point.

Of course people may well not have seen these warnings - they weren't that widely published and I don't suppose for a minute that scheme providers were handing over lists of their customers to HMRC - but HMRC should be accused of inefficiency and/or incompetence, not malice. Ultimately, paying the right amount of tax - define that how you will - is your responsibility; all HMRC are doing, in their own eyes, is correcting past mistakes.

[StrengthInNumbers]

We know the issue now and dealing with it.
Not all money was received. 20 odd percent was deduct. Compare this with limited company and you clearly feel I am paying a bit more to be more compliant than a limited company.

[DotasScandal]

This is why I don't support JR actions against APN's. It's not realistic to expect that this part of HMG policy will be reversed. It's in line with the opinion of perhaps 95% of the tax paying population, appears to be "fair"and matches the rules in other parts of the world.

"Two-thirds of Britons opposed to HMRC powers to demand disputed tax through Accelerated Payment Notices"

As for "matching the rules in other parts of the World" argument, I'd seriously be interested in seeing any other examples where a tax authority is allowed to create a "debt" out of thin air without having the arrangements examined by a court first.

[TykeMerc]

We know the issue now and dealing with it.
Not all money was received. 20 odd percent was deduct. Compare this with limited company and you clearly feel I am paying a bit more to be more compliant than a limited company.

Was that 20% deduction for payment of tax or scheme provider fees? Was that typical of all schemes or just the one you were in?

The retention percentage isn't going to carry any weight with HMRC, they will argue that an amount of tax is due on your income (whether that amount makes any sense is a different matter) and expect to be paid unless you can defeat them in some way. They won't be interested in any fee you paid to the scheme, that is between you and the scheme administrators

[dangerouswhensober]

Playing devil's advocate for a while:

This is why I don't support JR actions against APN's. It's not realistic to expect that this part of HMG policy will be reversed. It's in line with the opinion of perhaps 95% of the tax paying population, appears to be "fair"and matches the rules in other parts of the world.

"It's in line with the opinion of perhaps 95% of the tax paying population ..."

Could I ask where you got that figure from ? (DotasScandal has revealed his sources above ...)

"... appears to be 'fair' ..."

Exactly how does being tried, found guilty, and punished by your persecutor (not an idependent court) with no opportunity to establish innocence before being punished 'appear to be fair' ?

"and matches the rules in other parts of the world."

Sure - India and Kenya (amongst others) have similar provisions for advance payment of disputed tax. But then in India (by law) the Government has to approve any (and every) work dismissal, and suicide is legal but failing isn't - you will be prosecuted. And in Kenya it is illegal to walk the streets with no money in your pockets (the reason being that if you have no money it is presumed that you will want to steal) ... Just because something is legal in another part of the world doesn't make it any more justifiable or suitable for the UK.

Also "It's not realistic to expect that this part of HMG policy will be reversed." - Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a duly appointed court with sufficient authority concludes that a law is wrong (in the sense of unjust) then HMG has no choice to modify or withdraw that law - that's the whole point of JR - and that is also the main reason the Government tried to get rid of the JR process last year ...

[webberg]

"Two-thirds of Britons opposed to HMRC powers to demand disputed tax through Accelerated Payment Notices"

As for "matching the rules in other parts of the World" argument, I'd seriously be interested in seeing any other examples where a tax authority is allowed to create a "debt" out of thin air without having the arrangements examined by a court first.

https://www.ato.gov.au/General/Manag...ing-your-debt/

The above is Australia. They have had a pay first argue later system for a long time. I could pull up something similar for the US, Germany, Sweden etc.

The "survey" result from a self interest group carries little weight without seeing the questions asked, the format, the population tested, etc.

I'm sure if the question was ;

Do you think HMRC should be able to deduct funds from your bank account if they think there is tax due?

Then almost everybody says "no".

If the question was:

Do you think HMRC should be able to deduct funds from the bank account of somebody they suspect of tax avoidance but who is not co-operating with an enquiry?

Then perhaps fewer would say "no"?

On a personal level I object to APN because of the fact that an appeal cannot be made and the amount demanded in particular is not subject to independent review.

I object to HMG having cash in advance of final agreed liability ONLY because it puts even more control over timing in the hands of HMRC and history shows that they manipulate the Courts to advance winnable cases over more balanced ones.

The above and swapping links is ultimately pointless however. We are where we are. Find practical ways to solve the position.

I will repeat my view that the various groups here MUST find a way to combine their resources and seek a solution for the several thousand people rather than a few hundred in the forum and perhaps a few dozen who are active.

Division by provider makes little sense in seeking a solution. HMRC know this and will pick off the weakest one by one.

[DotasScandal]

The "survey" result from a self interest group carries little weight without seeing the questions asked, the format, the population tested, etc.
I'm sure if the question was ;
Do you think HMRC should be able to deduct funds from your bank account if they think there is tax due?

Actually, it's all there in clear text if you click on the link:

Q: "Do you support or oppose HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) having the ability to demand money they believe is owed to them in taxes without reviewing an individual’s self-assessment or proving their case in court?"

Support 16%
Oppose 66%
Don’t know 18%
Base: GB adults (n=2,011)

Methodology Note: ComRes interviewed 2,011 British adults online between 18th and 19th February 2014. Data were weighted to be representative of all GB adults aged 18+. ComRes is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules."

By the way, most surveys are commissioned by "self-interest" groups. That doesn't make them invalid...