APNs - why don't HMRC read the fecking law

[webberg]

My opinion is that Norla/Edge is a notifiable scheme.

[demby]

Edge started in 2005 if not before.

The document on the HRMC**ts website - updated 13th Jan 2016 states

Regulation 11: Arrangements excepted from Hallmark 5 (1) The arrangements specified in this regulation are— (a) those described in paragraph (2); and (b) those which are of the same, or substantially the same, description as arrangements which were first made available for implementation before 1st August 2006.

7.6.6 Test 4 – was the tax arrangement first made available on or after 1 August 2006? If the arrangements, or substantially the same arrangements (see paragraph 14.2.3 for guidance on ‘substantially the same’), forming the tax product were made available before 1 August 2006 (‘grandfathered’), then they are not disclosable by virtue of this hallmark. It is irrelevant whether a given legal entity made them available prior to 1st August 2006; what is important is whether any person made them available prior to this date.

Edge started in 2005, why would it not be classed as a "grandfathered" product??

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Edge started in 2005, why would it not be classed as a "grandfathered" product??

It would be grandfathered, but only in respect of the 2006 regulations (SI 2006/1543).

It's then a question of whether it was covered by the original 2004 rules (SI 2004/1863).
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2...0041863_en.pdf

[webberg]

It's also a question of determining whether the 2004 variant was sufficiently the same as say the 2007 variant.

I think that is unclear and the DOTAS rules operate to determine uncertainty in favour of HMRC, surprise, surprise.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Everyone has a choice.

a) Simply accept HMRC's position and pay the APNs, negotiate TTP, face enforcement proceedings etc.

or

b) Investigate whether there are grounds to challenge the validity of the APNs.

NTRT chose (b).

[DotasScandal]

Everyone has a choice.
a) Simply accept HMRC's position and pay the APNs, negotiate TTP, face enforcement proceedings etc.
or
b) Investigate whether there are grounds to challenge the validity of the APNs.
NTRT chose (b).

And that is why NTRT is respected and looked up to by all other groups.

Keep fighting the good fight.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

And that is why NTRT is respected and looked up to by all other groups.

Keep fighting the good fight.

Unfortunately, it all comes down to money.

It cost us over £10k for the QC opinion of the APNs.

[Wibble1]

It's also a question of determining whether the 2004 variant was sufficiently the same as say the 2007 variant.

I think that is unclear and the DOTAS rules operate to determine uncertainty in favour of HMRC, surprise, surprise.

Is this not the kind of investigating that the Big Group should be doing. Surely it's a given that after the news of Montpellier APN's being withdraw because the scheme was not notifiable under the DOTAS rules all other schemes should be checked to see if they to are not notifiable and therefore not liable under the current rules for issuing APN's.

[DotasScandal]

Is this not the kind of investigating that the Big Group should be doing

It's the kind of investigating that Big Group is doing. Feel free to join.

[Nocaster]

A ray of hope?

It's the kind of investigating that Big Group is doing. Feel free to join.

I thought I was on my own in this. I'm so glad to see that there are people willing to fight this unfairness. Can't imagine how bad this would be before the internet.