2019 tax charge - consultation preparation

[LandRover]

Got to be careful not to load any more bullets for HMRC, who read these forums.

The misery and pain they are and will unleash will be significant, so lets not help them with ideas of how to craft the legislation coming on open forums.

[DotasScandal]

Maybe we could take this to Tax Topics, guys?

[TheDandy]

I think the point is to ensure that those issues become so complex and perhaps controversial that the whole thing gets dropped.

I've said before and will again, Judicial Review in tax matters is a big gamble. HMRC win the vast majority of these cases and I shudder to think how much has been spent in legal fees on them.

Litigation in general is a gamble is it not? The forces of evil are probably working on the basis of their pockets are deeper than ours at the moment rather than the efficacy of any proposed legislation - stonewalling, pressure, stonewalling and more pressure.

But I would throw your words back at you 'so the answer is we pack up and go home'?

[TheDandy]

Got to be careful not to load any more bullets for HMRC, who read these forums.

The misery and pain they are and will unleash will be significant, so lets not help them with ideas of how to craft the legislation coming on open forums.

Yep!

[centurian]

True, they've got to find you first. Having said that, most pre-2011 schemes (Edge, Sanzar, AML, Cascade etc) were DOTAS.

In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if HMRC link the 2019 charge to DOTAS ie.

The charge can be levied where
(1) the scheme was a DOTAS scheme
and
(2) the taxpayer still has outstanding loans

And I doubt they will make the same mistake they did with APNs and s58 - that a scheme has to be DOTAS-able, rather than DOTAS'ed or DOTAS-able

[DotasScandal]

In case you missed it...

The Osborne Ultimatum: are we all being played?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

The Technical Note, says all "disguised remuneration" schemes. There is no DOTAS link and my opinion is that HMRC consider that DOTAS is not a reliable measure any more and there will be no link.

It depends what the (hidden) agenda is.

[cynical]
Targeting just DOTAS schemes would bring in a lot of revenue. It would enable them to crystallize all the APNs (payments on account) they've already collected.
[/cynical]

It would certainly be a lot harder to target the charge to only clobber employees in tax avoidance schemes, without linking it to DOTAS.

We shall see.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

How many pre-Dec 2010 schemes were there where:
a) the users received loans
b) the users were employees
c) the scheme was not DOTAS registered

I only know of one small example. All the big loan schemes were DOTAS registered, hence why APNs caught so many people.

As I say, we shall see.

[Iliketax]

How many pre-Dec 2010 schemes were there where:
a) the users received loans
b) the users were employees
c) the scheme was not DOTAS registered

I only know of one small example. All the big loan schemes were DOTAS registered, hence why APNs caught so many people.

As I say, we shall see.

I think that there were lots. They tended to be bespoke tax planning, not the mass-marketed type of things that contractors used. When you say "big loan schemes" I think you mean "big" as large number of individuals involved. When I think of these schemes, I think "big" means the amount of money going in to the scheme. Many in this category will have settled with HMRC already though.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I suppose they could stipulate that the charge will apply if a pre-Dec 2010 arrangement would have been caught by the Dec 2010 Disguised Remuneration rules had they been in force at the time.

The trouble with this, though, is it is open to interpretation. Would it be worth the hassle to catch the non-DOTAS arrangements?

The Government will say this is all about fairness but cynical me says it's really about generating a windfall for the Treasury.

At the moment, they can't book any of the money they've collected through APNs. They need people to settle, either voluntarily or by coercion, hence the 2019 charge.