BIG GROUP

[DotasScandal]

I think that can't happen.
Happy to discuss.

Why do you think it is unlikely? How would things look like for schemes that don't exist anymore?

[Dylan]

It wouldn't be unlawful if what I believe will happen takes place.

[MercladUK]

It wouldn't be unlawful if what I believe will happen takes place.

which is?

Me personally, can imagine a scenario where people pay APN's against a scheme and HMRC either don't have the resources, money or time to take it through FTT/UT and it just stays in limbo. If the scheme owners are not prepared to take it through the courts, what happens?

1, it is never settled, will never be settled
2, no penalties or interest is claimed

are we saying there are no time limits for this to be resolved?

[webberg]

Let's assume that there is a scheme which was DOTAS registered but which has now ended and the provider has disappeared (probably to run a very similar scheme) but is no longer providing support.

The members of the scheme are not organised and have not undertaken any collective action.

HMRC decides that the loans are income and prepares and issues APN's.

At some point in the future, HMRC decides that their analysis of the scheme is correct and in the absence of any form of appeal or challenge, issue final assessments. Once the time limit for appeal (even if extended by a Tribunal) has expired, the assessment is final and cannot be changed.

If the contractor appeals against the assessment, he/she will be invited at some point (between 12 months and perhaps 5 years) to support that appeal in Tribunal. Failure to do so will result in HMRC being declared the winners and their interpretation stands.

HMRC is NOT constitutionally able to simply ignore or forget cases. It may take them years but they have to do it.

If you have a liability and have correctly reported the fact (and note that it is YOUR responsibility to report, NOT HMRC's responsibility to find out) but HMRC through fault or deliberate choice fail to assess, then the usual time limits apply.

Cases that slip through the system untouched by HMRC will allow you to escape liability provided it is genuine and you have not deliberately aided the escape. Even then HMRC might use a 20 year power if they think fraud is involved.

I hope this helps.

[MercladUK]

If you have a liability and have correctly reported the fact (and note that it is YOUR responsibility to report, NOT HMRC's responsibility to find out) but HMRC through fault or deliberate choice fail to assess, then the usual time limits apply.

If you are of the mindset that the EBT/PBT was legal, then in your eyes you don't have a liability.

[webberg]

If you are of the mindset that the EBT/PBT was legal, then in your eyes you don't have a liability.

Don't confuse "legal" with "effective".

Being legal is not enough. Where the law allows more than one interpretation, i.e. the transfer of money from party A to party B may be in the legal form of a loan, but do the FACTS permit it to be seen as the payment of SALARY, then a Judge may prefer to see it as salary/income.

It is a long proven tenet of tax law that substance trumps form. This comes dressed in various catchy phrases that QC's etc like to throw around (at £100 guineas a go) such as "Ramsay doctrine", Purposive interpretation, application of the intentions of Parliament to the unblinkered facts, etc.

Simple rule.

You can be perfectly legal but still be taxed if the FACTS allow for a different interpretation.

Being legal protects you from fraud and more serious allegations but is unlikely to help much at enquiry level.

You will also find that "legal" from your perspective, an intelligent individual with an appreciation of the law, varies from that of a trained and experienced professional lawyer, QC, barrister, Judge. The unfortunate fact is that although we are all equal before the law, some are more equal than others.

And before it's said, NO I don't believe that HMRC influence Judges (or certainly not in Upper Tier and above).

I'm saying no more on the legal point here. I had an exchange with Strength in Numbers a few months ago on this point and would refer you there.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

So I predict once the bulk of APN money is in, things will be left in limbo forever.

Once HMRC have got the APN money they certainly won't be in any hurry to finalise cases. They are slow at the best of times but they'll be even more tardy when they're sitting on the cash. It will be down to taxpayers to force matters.

[DotasScandal]

Once HMRC have got the APN money they certainly won't be in any hurry to finalise cases. They are slow at the best of times but they'll be even more tardy when they're sitting on the cash. It will be down to taxpayers to force matters.

...and by then there will be no more taxpayer to force matters. Or they will be living on the streets.

Mission accomplished.

[carling]

Once HMRC have got the APN money they certainly won't be in any hurry to finalise cases. They are slow at the best of times but they'll be even more tardy when they're sitting on the cash. It will be down to taxpayers to force matters.

Then when they don't force it (no cash to fight), Treasury coffers get low, they will be back again with some other APN angle (IHT or suchlike).

[webberg]

Then when they don't force it (no cash to fight), Treasury coffers get low, they will be back again with some other APN angle (IHT or suchlike).

The current CLSO reserves HMRC's right to apply IHT anyway.