Latest misinformation

**eek** · 11 July 2016, 17:05

I think you need to separate out the past and now... There are still schemes being sold (my current favourite scam is the one paid via an Indian company - good luck when they do a runner)..

And its nice to finally have a government link which we can link to people to say why you shouldn't join a scheme.

I would agree that the last paragraph is a bit much though when even HMRC admit they only win 80% of cases (didn't that use to be 90% btw)...

**AtW** · 11 July 2016, 17:10

"The reality is that the reference number identifies you as the user of a scheme, and you can expect HMRC to investigate it."

This one is nice.

**QCApproved** · 11 July 2016, 17:43

Bolted Horses

It is a shame for a lot on here that this statement and clarity was not forthcoming approximately 10 years ago.
It should help clarify and address a loan problem that represents i would say 3% of what it did in monetary terms then.
The tales of extrajudicial eviscerating and carpeting bombing contractors have spread wide and far HMRC and will have had greater effect than this footnote.

It should begin "After years of inaction, confusion and fear of adverse judicial outcomes -we are now empowered and emboldened by our political masters to offer clear guidance to help taxpayers in there affairs"

The litigation paragraph is also missing a bit though surely: "In any event - what the correct legal position was may become irrelevant at HMRC's discretion"

Why is appropriate to give a recent new scheme user a warning now and not those who went before him/her?

**cojak** · 11 July 2016, 19:08

Would they have listened though? This forum has been telling anyone who asked not to join these schemes for the last 10 years, but people hear what they want to hear.

**eek** · 11 July 2016, 19:16

Originally posted by cojak View Post

Would they have listened though? This forum has been telling anyone who asked not to join these schemes for the last 10 years, but people hear what they want to hear.

That HMRC page would have helped a lot. Just by giving Us s government page to point to It would have made the salesman's job a lot harder.

Remember HMRC said nothing giving the salesman a free hand to tell any story you want. It was HMRC's public facing silence that was half the reason those schemes were so successful

**DotasScandal** · 11 July 2016, 20:23

Originally posted by cojak View Post

Would they have listened though? This forum has been telling anyone who asked not to join these schemes for the last 10 years, but people hear what they want to hear.

Beg to disagree. Faced with a note like this, our feeling is that 99% of contractors that got into "schemes" would have run like the wind. The "hear what they want to hear" faction is the remaining 1%, and completely negligible.
Also, don't overestimate the visibility of the CUK forum.

**DotasScandal** · 11 July 2016, 20:27

Originally posted by QCApproved View Post

Why is appropriate to give a recent new scheme user a warning now and not those who went before him/her?

I think that last point is very important, as it touches on equal treatment of taxpayers. What exactly prevented HMRC from issuing the exact same note 12 years back?
I hope this argument is uttered loud and clear in the upcoming court cases.

**QCApproved** · 11 July 2016, 21:20

Hindsight

Agreed Cojak its a fair point
but also agreed Eek and DotasScandal - it would have put off a lot - but not some and for reasons I'll expand in due course - it does feel like a tort of some sort
I'm surprised the creation date of the web apge isn't back dated 10 years so that he can be pointed to in any forthcoming proceedings

**northernladuk** · 11 July 2016, 23:37

Originally posted by DotasScandal View Post

Beg to disagree. Faced with a note like this, our feeling is that 99% of contractors that got into "schemes" would have run like the wind. The "hear what they want to hear" faction is the remaining 1%, and completely negligible.
Also, don't overestimate the visibility of the CUK forum.

I find this very hard to believe. We've seen the lengths and risks people go to through pure greed on here and there is little done in the way of basic research and even when it is it's often argued. If that is what people are like about fairly minor and clear cut stuff I can't help but think many more will have stuck with a scheme regardless.

Latest misinformation