HMRC withdrawing 2,000 Montpelier APNs

[DonkeyRhubarb]

So, what happens now?? Will anyone who's paid up be getting a refund from HMRC?? Is the Montpelier case over now or will it continue through the courts?

I assume HMRC will have to refund anyone who has paid an APN.

This FOI request may reveal the scale of the issue, assuming HMRC don't wriggle out of responding.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...er_scheme_apns

Montpelier are currently in the process of appealing the Huitson tax case to the Upper Tribunal.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

I assume HMRC will have to refund anyone who has paid an APN.

This FOI request may reveal the scale of the issue, assuming HMRC don't wriggle out of responding.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...er_scheme_apns

Montpelier are currently in the process of appealing the Huitson tax case to the Upper Tribunal.

Thanks DR - surely this must adversely affect HMRC's chances in any appeal?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Thanks DR - surely this must adversely affect HMRC's chances in any appeal?

Unfortunately not. APNs have no bearing on the underlying tax dispute/appeal.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Unfortunately not. APNs have no bearing on the underlying tax dispute/appeal.

Even thought they've acknowledged that there was no need to declare under DOTAS? If there's no need to declare then surely it can't be considered avoidance or is the scheme challenged under COP 9?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Even thought they've acknowledged that there was no need to declare under DOTAS? If there's no need to declare then surely it can't be considered avoidance or is the scheme challenged under COP 9?

When DOTAS was first introduced, in 2004, it's scope was narrower, and quite a lot of arrangements fell outside it. I believe there were also grandfathering clauses. Although the DOTAS hallmarks were widened in 2006, this also had grandfathering provisions.

I'm sure HMRC would argue that something can still be avoidance even if it doesn't fall within DOTAS.

In any case, whether it was avoidance or not, Montpelier are confronted with section 58 finance act 2008, which retrospectively changed the law, back to 1987, invalidating the claims to double tax relief that we put on our self-assessments.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

When DOTAS was first introduced, in 2004, it's scope was narrower, and quite a lot of arrangements fell outside it. I believe there were also grandfathering clauses. Although the DOTAS hallmarks were widened in 2006, this also had grandfathering provisions.

I'm sure HMRC would argue that something can still be avoidance even if it doesn't fall within DOTAS.

In any case, Montpelier are faced with section 58 finance act 2008, which retrospectively changed the law, back to 1987, invalidating the claims to double tax relief that we put on our self-assessments.

So really just a case of just keep moving the goal posts around until they get what they want

You know my feelings on tax avoidance schemes but this whole thing really is too much

[DonkeyRhubarb]

So really just a case of just keep moving the goal posts around until they get what they want

Yes but HMRC can wait until the end of the game, then go back in time and move the goalposts.

[BrilloPad]

You know my feelings on tax avoidance schemes but this whole thing really is too much

That it is every tax payers duty to avoid as much tax as possible?

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

That it is every tax payers duty to avoid as much tax as possible?

[webberg]

Whether HMRC repays already settled APN's or not is going to be an interesting debate.

There is a legal principle of unjust enrichment. In essence this says that funds should not go to those who don't deserve them. I wonder if HMRC will try to apply it, arguing that those due to be repaid have avoided tax (unproven) and therefore should not have funds until that position is clear.

Further, HMRC has a general power to deny repayments where they believe that there may ultimately be a liability (again, just their opinion). usually this is exercised where a self assessment return creates a repayment or where an appeal has been won by the taxpayer but HMRC intend to appeal further.

These rules are not designed for the monumental up cock seen here but would HMRC try to apply them?