CLSO - DEADLINE 30th JUNE

[neil99]

Hi

Can someone advise pleas (Weberg??).


So what I'd be happy doing is declaring for the tax years which have open enquiry but not the others.

I don't have the numbers for the non open tax years in any case but do for the open tax years.

I can't help feel that hmrc will just use these numbers as an admission of guilt.

I think not. But we are in uncharted waters here!

I've engaged with HMRC with the CLSO. From what I can work out they have only opened an enquiry for one year of one scheme and not two years of another scheme.

When I asked for a revised calculation including IHT (I said I'd be planning to get my loans written off via the trustees) then they quoted a calculation that included the two non-open (?) years for IHT.

They have all the numbers from me now. I want to get the IHT calculation broken down as I believe it's incorrect.

Webberg and others have suggested it's very sensible to engage with the settlement team as it shows good will on my part and a willingness to reach a settlement. This may become useful if the scheme provider looses in court and the question of penalties are included.

I've not had APNs for the two presumably non-open years. Not are they mentioned except in the IHT calculations in my CLSO.

The problem with the CLSO is that there is no statement of finality for the non-open years therefore settlement is not full and final for all three years I was involved in two (identical) schemes. If HMRC had took a clear position on this then the CLSO would be more attractive.

[parallelmonogamist]

webberg, thanks again for the info.

A number of us have registered an interest by email response, letter and/or phone call to the number on the CLSO letter. None of these have involved providing figures or filling in the form.

Are you saying this is not enough, that we should provide figures and submit this form particularly, or is it enough to have spoken/emailed/mailed them?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

The CLSO is another bodge job by HMRC.

If they'd made it a simple case of paying 100% of the income tax & interest, a lot more people would have taken up the offer.

Instead of which they screw it up with IHT. If they had half an ounce of common sense and pragmatism they would have forgone the IHT on the basis that they were treating the loans as taxable income, not genuine loans.

Muppets.

[Laxmi]

Register for the CLSO. It's not an admission of anything other than an interest in engaging productively with HMRC.

With respect to Montpelier, it is not for them to be the arbiter of penalties. A penalty could be applied by HMRC, appealed against and finally decided by a judge. Montpelier's opinion, mine or anybody else's is not relevant.

I was making the point that HMRC will threaten penalties but as has been pointed out, there are defences. Whether they are waterproof defences remains to be seen.

I would say that declaring numbers etc to HMRC is not in itself an exemption from penalty. A penalty is based on behaviours. If you deliberately concealed information about a scheme that is a behaviour that WILL be punished. If you have declared everything but HMRC can convince a judge that you have been "careless" by even entering a known tax avoidance scheme, then you could see a charge.

It's not a ploy. A settlement offer whilst litigation is pending is a tried and trusted route used by HMRC to a) collect money, b) reduce resource cost, c) splinter fighting groups, d) discourage further argument.

Consider your options here.

1. Register an interest in settling, get a number and consider it.
2. If the number is lower than you thought, you might take it.
3. If it's not, then what?
4. You litigate = long time, expensive, complex and needs to be organised. Who will organise?
5. You seek a settlement = long time (not as long as 4), less expensive, being organised

DOING NOTHING IS NOT AN OPTION.

Do nothing and you will have applied to your circumstances, the result of a litigation you cannot influence or if there is no organised litigation group, you will have to accept the HMRC interpretation of your position.

Registering for the CLSO costs nothing = DO IT.

Thanks for the response.
I wrote to Monty and they informed me that this desn;t apply as it's for those on EBT as opposed to me who was self employed...is this correct?

Thanks again

[Laxmi]

Thanks for the response.
I wrote to Monty and they informed me that this desn;t apply as it's for those on EBT as opposed to me who was self employed...is this correct?

Thanks again

Also, I have not received an APN for this.

[Cerbera]

Loan amounts for CLSO....where would I get these?

Hi folks,

The email account that i used when with edge was closed a very long time ago. Any ideas where i'd get the loan amounts to state on the CLSO?

Any info much appreciated.

[parallelmonogamist]

I asked the Nationwide for my old statements. To my pleasant surprise, they had them all the way back to 2006.

[webberg]

Sorry chaps - been on the road or the phone most of the day and will be back here later this evening (10ish)

[webberg]

Okay, so if I enter values that later on are found to be much different to what the scheme provider supplied to HMRC then is that a careless act?

What are the margins of error to be deemed careless? 10% 20%...

I am struggling to understand what the CLSO will achieve when HMRC have absolutely no attitude to negotiating a settlement. I appreciate your knowledge is far greater than mine in dealing with HMRC, so are you stating there is a positive to engaging by the CLSO when ultimately there is no way I would accept the CLSO when I have a possibility, however small, of recouping my APN payment?

You are obliged to enter numbers to the best of your knowledge and belief. HMRC will use third part sources to verify or challenge them.

If you use an estimate, that's perfectly legitimate as long as you advise that is the case.

Careless is not under or over estimating but missing numbers off completely.

Registering for the CLSO achieves, a) a positive audit trail of engagement should HMRC think about penalty, b) provide an opportunity for HMRC to get it wrong, c) force HMRC to think about missing open years, d) use their resources, e) create a legitimate expectation amongst non settlors.

I think much more should be directed via the BG forum please.

[webberg]

Hi

Can someone advise pleas (Weberg??).

I engaged with hmrc via CLSO but have not yet filled in the D03. I asked HMRC specifically in regard to anCOP8 enquiry and would like to restrict what I declare on the DO3 to those tax years - ie put the COP8 enquiry reference on the form. Is that a legit approach?

I am talking about 2007-2008 tax year. I also received a COP8 for the previous tax year but was in the scheme prior to 2004 which was non DOTAS.

So what I'd be happy doing is declaring for the tax years which have open enquiry but not the others.

I don't have the numbers for the non open tax years in any case but do for the open tax years.

I can't help feel that hmrc will just use these numbers as an admission of guilt.

Aside from noting that the last point is completely wrong, I think I'd rather not answer the others in public.

Either PM or go to BG please