2019 tax charge - consultation preparation

[DotasScandal]

I don't know why you keep feeding this tWA*

It's a slow day. But you are right. Should not be playing this game.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

It's a slow day. But you are right. Should not be playing this game.

For the record, the Montpelier (Huitson) scheme started in May 2001.
HMRC published a technical note about it in July 2002.

They then did nothing until 2008, when they got the Labour Government to introduce retrospective legislation.

David Gauke later described it as "not HMRC's finest hour".

[AtW]

For the record, the Montpelier (Huitson) scheme started in May 2001.
HMRC published a technical note about it in July 2002.

They then did nothing until 2008, when they got the Labour Government to introduce retrospective legislation.

David Gauke described it as "not HMRC's finest hour".

But what do I know.

The onus on paying correct amount of tax is on the taxpayer. I believe in High Court decision the judge said something along the lines "yes, HMRC was slower than it should have been, but it does not give any advantage to those who did not pay what they should have in the first place".

Did they open query into SA returns within first year of submission or did they wait until 2008 to notify about opening query?

From what I understand they did query quickly, which was a BIG hint to pay up or at least make CDT for the full amount just in case.

So go on, tell me - when did HMRC open queries into SA returns, in 2008 or much much earlier?

[difficulttimes]

You are right that APNs were used so HMRC kept the money instead of the taxpayer during lengthy litigation proceedings. The Finance Select Committee were told that they would only be issued with there is an ongoing litigation case against that scheme. ie. HMRC took them to FTT and the scheme lost but they are appealing to the Upper Tier. At which point an APN for the disputable amount would be issued. That's how it was intended to be used I believe. Funny enough a scheme from Montpellier had their APN withdrawn and were already a long way through litigation which is the type of scheme APNs would have been created for.

Reality is that APNs are issued by a team that is basically separate to the rest of the teams at HMRC and who don't bother to use the documents that have been filed ie. P11D and on the most part don't even know what the 'tax loss' is. All they care about is an DOTAS number and that is it. The investigative team don't even need to say yes there is a perceived tax loss here of £10 000 to the taxpayer and this gets passed to the APN team. No they are still conducting their investigations at the same time an APN is issued - where is the fairness there? This is why APN amounts are widely out and made up and when they speak to the investigative team about whether an APN is going to be issued. They say ' we don't know thats a separate team'.
At the very very least the investigation should be completed and the tax loss confirmed before an APN is issued.

But we know that the driver behind this is meeting a KPI to issue X amount of APNs by this date to generate X amount of money. The human cost is secondary but may be felt by more people than any other policy that has been driven from HMRC. This is not backed up by facts but how many policies could lead to thousands upon thousands of people filing for bankruptcy and the human cost that comes from this. Bankruptcy is only the first step then comes family breakdown, depression and possibly people taking their own life. It's an incredibly sad predicament.

I think you need to get your head out of the sand and come back to the reality of the situation.

[AtW]

But we know that the driver behind this is meeting a KPI to issue X amount of APNs by this date to generate X amount of money.

Obviously! What else did you expect?

[difficulttimes]

Obviously! What else did you expect?

The Finance Select Committee who are a bunch of MPs who should be looking out for us and ensuring their department is interrupting the law as it was intended to be.

A simple inclusion in the legislation that said an APN can only be issued when 'litigation matters have commenced' would have sufficed at the very least. It's still retrospective and retroactive and every other retro out there but at least the powers couldn't be abused to the extent they are today.

[AtW]

A simple inclusion in the legislation that said an APN can only be issued when 'litigation matters have commenced' would have sufficed at the very least.

So this was needed so that scheme users could start litigation to stop APNs on the basis that litigation matters about their specific scheme have not in fact commenced?

The point of APNs is NOT about keeping scheme users happy, quiet the opposite actually.

It seems reasonable to me that they issue APNs to anybody who got DOTAS number. And why not - the person in question ADMITTED they are using tax avoidance SCHEME, so it's prudent to ask them to pay up via APN whilst matters are decided, this is exactly to prevent current situation when money got spent and users are demanding "fair and final" settlement that would take into account their fees to scheme provider!

[webberg]

I'm assuming from the rather confused slurring of fact and opinion above that the ATW poster has never actually worked a tax case?

The timetable in all tax litigation is with HMRC. They decide when to take a case, when to delay it because they have found a "better" set of facts and when to accelerate it.

They talk a lot of nonsense that is lapped up by the press about rich taxpayers who "win" by creating delay but that is a) not true and b) applies to about 5% of those they investigate.

Here is a FACT.

A company I worked for had international operations. Some of those had to be audited locally before their tax position could be signed off. Sometimes that required a few years post the year end to complete. This meant that the final group tax calculations (including foreign tax credits etc) could not be agreed until all those audits happened.

The year I joined that company, tax computations for the previous 12 years were "open", i.e. unagreed.

The year I left that company (12 years later), 18 of the previous years were unagreed.

Of those 12 original years and 18 subsequent years, just 5 and 6 respectively were because of foreign tax authority audit.

The remainder was because of paralysing indecision in HMRC who wanted desperately to extract more cash from a compliant operation but were frustrated by the application of law by the tax department. And believe me, they tried everything from smooching the executive to threats of "putting you out of business". All litigations launched by HMRC in that time either lost or were abandoned.

Those are FACTS.

Those are not PR stories planted by HMRC in a complaint press.

That is why HMRC fails to collect from multinational business and instead goes after individuals who don't have dozens of well paid tax people.

That is why HMRC is inherently unfair in its treatment of contractors.

Now, I don't mind you having an opinion, that's your to enjoy, but to try and argue opinion as fact and justification for a blatantly unfair bullying campaign either means that you continue to ignore the facts, are in denial, or are perhaps an HMRC officer?

Last post in response to any more of this nonsense.

Let's get the thread back on track or just abandon it and move to taxtopics.

[AtW]

That is why HMRC is inherently unfair in its treatment of contractors.

So your position is that HMRC must voluntarily fail to collect tax due from contractors just like they fail to deal with multinationals?

It's totally unfair that big multinationals with complex affairs pay less tax then they should, but lets look at some numbers. In UK's budget £ 41 bln is corp tax - income tax + NICs are £ 277 bln (source: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/...ernmen-010.jpg )

So, which revenue is most critical for Govt to protect??? The risk of the schemers that you defend is that based on this supposed legality Govt would get people paying 3.5% tax rates (based on Huitson case), obviously no serious Govt in the world would allow that.

So you line of defense based on multinationals cheating HMRC is rather poor - even if you beat them up with a stick you won't increase corp tax take a lot: £10 bln max per year.

P.S. No, I don't work on tax cases, I am just an honest taxpayer like vast majority of people in this country, also I've got conscience to see the difference between right and wrong.

The remainder was because of paralysing indecision in HMRC who wanted desperately to extract more cash from a compliant operation but were frustrated by the application of law by the tax department.

You mean by people like yourself arguing things like paying big royalty to trademark owner conveniently located in offshore?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Is it time to leave CUK altogether?

Not because of our "friend" but because these public discussions may assist HMRC over the coming months.

Btw, you can put him on ignore here:
http://forums.contractoruk.com/profi...?do=ignorelist