HMRC Notice of Assessment APSE Consulting Ltd

[webberg]

Probably wasn’t worded well, it would be easy enough for me to calculate what settlement would be. I guess what I’m asking, do any other users have reason to believe the scheme should not be caught by loan charge? Is there really any benefit for joining BG on this particular scheme as I should be clear on the loans received. I’m assuming any of BG clients who used this scheme will need to settle. I really just don’t want to spend any more money which I may not be able to afford

I'll respond to the connections with Big group.

The APSE scheme claims to be exempt from the loan charge because of a literal interpretation of the law and on the assumption that the execution of the arrangement did not vary from the literal process in the documents. I'm sure that there is more to their argument and that I may be corrected, but the above is how it seems to me.

If therefore HMRC can be compelled to observe the letter of the law, the loan charge may not arise.

IN terms of whether a liability arises at all, via disguised remuneration rules or otherwise, again, the claim is that it will not. I'm a little in the dark as to why and I'm sure that some very clever people have gone over the details and analysis. My view however is that the principles laid down in Rangers might be difficult to avoid.

In terms of the BG plan, it would depend which version was used and in particular whether the contractors Own Co was in the loop.

If not, than the core BG plan is applicable and we do have a group of users going down this route.

If Own Co is involved, it's more difficult and depending on the level of tax involved and its likely impact on client lifestyle, then we may recommend and execute settlement for them.

The decision over whether to fight or settle is only partly about tax and money. There are hundreds of subjective matters that each individual has to be decide for themselves.

All BG offers is a chance to reduce the bill/fight for your principles/kick the can down the road [pick which one appeals to you].

[WalterWhite]

I'll respond to the connections with Big group.

The APSE scheme claims to be exempt from the loan charge because of a literal interpretation of the law and on the assumption that the execution of the arrangement did not vary from the literal process in the documents. I'm sure that there is more to their argument and that I may be corrected, but the above is how it seems to me.

If therefore HMRC can be compelled to observe the letter of the law, the loan charge may not arise.

IN terms of whether a liability arises at all, via disguised remuneration rules or otherwise, again, the claim is that it will not. I'm a little in the dark as to why and I'm sure that some very clever people have gone over the details and analysis. My view however is that the principles laid down in Rangers might be difficult to avoid.

In terms of the BG plan, it would depend which version was used and in particular whether the contractors Own Co was in the loop.

If not, than the core BG plan is applicable and we do have a group of users going down this route.

If Own Co is involved, it's more difficult and depending on the level of tax involved and its likely impact on client lifestyle, then we may recommend and execute settlement for them.

The decision over whether to fight or settle is only partly about tax and money. There are hundreds of subjective matters that each individual has to be decide for themselves.

All BG offers is a chance to reduce the bill/fight for your principles/kick the can down the road [pick which one appeals to you].

Hello Webberg

Are they the only provider that have stuck around to defend their clients?

[traveller9266]

Hi WalterWhite
I have sent you a PM. If you could shed some light it would be good.
Thanks

[Glasgowlass]

I've just today been sent similar correspondence from HMRC on this (they actually reference Via Trade but I think it's one and the same as APSE). Via Trade said that there's 'nothing at all to worry about' and to effectively ignore HMRC as their scheme differed to others. Guessing that this is not good advice based on what I've read here so not sure what to do next. WalterWhite, do you have direct experience of dealing with them?

[WalterWhite]

Hi WalterWhite
I have sent you a PM. If you could shed some light it would be good.
Thanks

Have just replied

[webberg]

Hello Webberg

Are they the only provider that have stuck around to defend their clients?

I think I have an issue with the question and would rephrase it as:

Are the only provider to stick around? - No. AML, Montpelier, still in there. Others have fallen at intervals since 2005.

Are they defending their clients? I suppose it depends on how you define "defending" and "clients".

Some promoters offered users of their schemes various services, including tax returns and assumed the mantle of being a "tax adviser". If they were a conventional practice, then the tax team would be looking after each individual client. They are not however a tax practice. They are a firm dedicated to selling a product which derives value from tax (and other things).

The tax team of the promoter is probably working for the promoter and the user of the scheme is rather incidental.

Is the tax team therefore working on your behalf or for the promoter? Are you the promoter's client for professional services or just a customer buying a product.

Is it the case the if push came to shove, any potential conflict of interest would be settled in favour of who pays the salary bill?

[webberg]

I've just today been sent similar correspondence from HMRC on this (they actually reference Via Trade but I think it's one and the same as APSE). Via Trade said that there's 'nothing at all to worry about' and to effectively ignore HMRC as their scheme differed to others. Guessing that this is not good advice based on what I've read here so not sure what to do next. WalterWhite, do you have direct experience of dealing with them?

Never ignore HMRC.

Go and get unbiased advice.

[pingpong]

Contractor Loans - The loan charge

I have recently received a letter from HMRC (titled "Contractor Loans - The loan charge") about contractor loan, presumedly for my involvement with APSE (which was for 1.5 years back in 2012-2013), this was after a Section 9A Taxes Management Act 1970 letter from HMRC about tax year 2013, i received a while back.

Am wondering how best to deal with this letter from HMRC? Anyone else in a similar situation who is able to advise? Is settling a good option i.e. contacting HMRC myself or should i do via a solicitor?

[webberg]

I have recently received a letter from HMRC (titled "Contractor Loans - The loan charge") about contractor loan, presumedly for my involvement with APSE (which was for 1.5 years back in 2012-2013), this was after a Section 9A Taxes Management Act 1970 letter from HMRC about tax year 2013, i received a while back.

Am wondering how best to deal with this letter from HMRC? Anyone else in a similar situation who is able to advise? Is settling a good option i.e. contacting HMRC myself or should i do via a solicitor?

You can by all means use a solicitor but you'd be better off with a tax adviser.

The letter is just warning you about the charge or if you want to be cynical - pressuring you into settlement.

Google WTT or Phil at DSW.

[pingpong]

You can by all means use a solicitor but you'd be better off with a tax adviser.

The letter is just warning you about the charge or if you want to be cynical - pressuring you into settlement.

Google WTT or Phil at DSW.

Thanks, has anyone tried dealing with HMRC directly themselves? Or is this a not recommended?