HMRC Notice of Assessment APSE Consulting Ltd

[dammit chloe]

Agree but again what I find interesting is why pause settlements because of the LC review? They aren't mutually related and are on a different path. What LC change can impact the settlement? If HMRC had ALL the facts, would they still be helpful?

You can't seriously believe that. If not for LC I would told them to go hang. The LC is a coercion tool for "voluntary settlement".

[mcfly49490]

Many (most?) people are only settling to avoid the LC. If the LC was dropped, or substantially watered down, many may reconsider their decision to settle.

So, they are related in a "cause and effect" sense.

But that's not a good reason for HMRC to put these on hold (or suggest to do so as an option). If this was the case, HMRC wouldn't chance this as less people would decide to settle.

[DealorNoDeal]

But that's not a good reason for HMRC to put these on hold (or suggest to do so as an option). If this was the case, HMRC wouldn't chance this as less people would decide to settle.

Suppose Fred was in the process of settling. By offering him the option to put it on hold, until the outcome of the review, HMRC are covering their backs. If Fred decides to still press ahead with the settlement then there's no come back on HMRC if the LC was subsequently dropped.

If HMRC didn't offer this, then there is a risk that Fred could come back later and claim he settled under false pretences.

-------------------------

As an aside, if the LC was dropped, where does that leave everyone who has already reached a full & final settlement? Most of these people would never have settled if it had not been for the threat of the LC.

[BrilloPad]

As an aside, if the LC was dropped, where does that leave everyone who has already reached a full & final settlement? Most of these people would never have settled if it had not been for the threat of the LC.

They would have no come back. Unless HMRC introduce retrospective legislation.

Silly me - they would never do that.

[Iter]

I settled back in May, with the LC factor and pressure I decided to settle this one. Maybe in 20 yrs time I’ll be able to claim back....[emoji848]

[Justice123]

More like £33m - APSE CONSULTING LTD - Filing history (free information from Companies House)

CQ. He's currently trying to get a company off the ground called PAYESERV LTD based in Liverpool. I find it interesting he's not listed as a director on companies house. There's a FB page with a number for those who may wish to speak to him directly.

I'm very interested in this 33m owed though if someone could go into more detail I would be grateful to hear.

The current scheme works by splitting the contract value into 2 payments. One payment is taxed at the source and the other is advanced as a "loan" from an Employer Incentivization agreeement, (EIA) trust. HMRC's interest rate on beneficial loans is 2.5%.

For every 10k you are advanced you are expected to pay £250, The Umbrella company, i.e. "COLIN"; will pay this as "Benefit in kind". Benefit in kind tax is 20%.

20% of £250 = £50. This can be deferred or declared. As fudiciary law states, A trust must act within the best interest of a beneficiary and therefore must not put you in a financial state of loss. This agreement is active for 120 years so by then you will be long dead and monies owed written off, or so they say.

[webberg]

CQ. He's currently trying to get a company off the ground called PAYESERV LTD based in Liverpool. This can be deferred or declared.

So you get money for working but can "chose" whether to declare or not?

I'm going to be bold and say that I think it very unlikely that HMRC will agree with that position and are going to be asking questions.

As with all these schemes, go and get INDEPENDENT advice.

[DealorNoDeal]

As with all these schemes, avoid like the fecking plague.

FTFY

[Justice123]

I work on behallf of HMRC.

Anyone who has scammed by Colin Quirk please PM me.

[Fred Bloggs]

I work on behallf of HMRC.

Anyone who has scammed by Colin Quirk please PM me.