HMRC consultation on penalties for scheme developers/marketers

[DotasScandal]

HMRC claims victory in film tax battle - BBC News

HMRC and Ingenious both claim victory in long-running tax avoidance dispute

[DotasScandal]

I've read the paper through once and will need to again.

What strikes me immediately is that there is no clear definition of "avoidance" and a (deliberate?) conflation of avoidance and evasion at every opportunity.

I would also observe that the intention to deter people from using schemes. Great - would agree with that - but why now and why not 10 years ago.

Also why give the guilty a chance to disappear? Is it because HMRC knows it has already missed the boat in chasing these people and is now just engaged in essential orifice protection.

Finally, outside of a few cases involving bonus schemes used by big banks, what avoidance scheme has been defeated allowing the sanction to be applied?

Can't see how the avoidance/evasion amalgamation could be UNintentional, considering it's been a theme for the past 2 years (Behavioural Insights Ltd. probably advised that if they repeat a slogan / a lie often enough....)

For all the "HMRC wins 80% of cases" talk, all we see, from APNs through to the "2019 charge" to today's document, are attempts (through dissuasion, intimidation, and outright depriving litigants from the financial means necessary to fund their case) to prevent facts from being examined by tribunals.
Who is using "stalling tactics"? And what are HMRC so scared of?

Something smells very fishy.

[QCApproved]

Should have used the film scheme no loans to charge regardless either

[AtW]

HMRC and Ingenious both claim victory in long-running tax avoidance dispute

I've changed my example to another (you quoted me before that happened):

https://www.accountancyage.com/2016/...idance-scheme/

So in this case EY would be on the hook

[webberg]

That's a case that relied upon a timing difference created in the loan relationships rules. Those rules apply to companies only. Not sure that's going to help with contractor schemes.

Perhaps the closest is the DB/UBS schemes but there the banks have settled the tax. Again, unlikely to help with contractor schemes.

The whole paper reflects HMRC's continued (deliberate?) misunderstanding of how contractor schemes work and I'm beginning to suspect that they are trying to perpetutate the lie as it covers up their own incompetence and spitefulness.

[AtW]

That's a case that relied upon a timing difference created in the loan relationships rules. Those rules apply to companies only. Not sure that's going to help with contractor schemes.

You've asked for "what avoidance scheme has been defeated allowing the sanction to be applied?" and I've given you one - in this case HMRC would have collected nice bonus from EY.

If you are asking "what contractor avoidance scheme has been defeated" then surely Huitson would come to mind?

BBC News - Offshore tax avoiders face £100m tax bill

Granted the penalty would need to be collected from MP, which unlike EY might not have enough money, but they could also go for promoters, those accountans who earned referral fees and the best bit - QC who "approved" it, hehe

[AtW]

Should have used the film scheme no loans to charge regardless either

You are right - loans schemes are unique in that they created permanent "footprint" by means of having those forever loans, so that just made it trivial to attack and achieve retro effect.

[DotasScandal]

Sure, they may try and cover up their failures and make contractors at large their fall man.
Problem: there are 50 000+ witnesses. Can't silence them all.

Besides, the inconsistencies and incoherences in their narrative are starting to show.

That won't be lost on everybody.

[AtW]

That won't be lost on everybody.

The world does not care, this isn't JFK - nobody will be making movies about your conspiracy theories.

[centurian]

You are right - loans schemes are unique in that they created permanent "footprint" by means of having those forever loans, so that just made it trivial to attack and achieve retro effect.

WHS - the Achilles heels of the loan schemes - is the loan itself - it leaves a permanent target for HMRC to aim their guns at.