Via Trade Consultants - Intention to enquire into SA

[webberg]

How can people stop HMRC going after more tax later? Such as IHT after income tax? Don't people need some sort of advice? Is that through an accountant? A lawyer? BG? WTT?

Well, horse to water time here.

We (Big Group and WTT) have a view on the settlement and its nature. We are happy to explain that upon request.

Other advisers have their view which may or may not coincide with ours.

It is unfortunate that the views do not match in some places but that probably reflects the underlying ethos behind the advisers.

[BrilloPad]

Well, horse to water time here.

We (Big Group and WTT) have a view on the settlement and its nature. We are happy to explain that upon request.

Other advisers have their view which may or may not coincide with ours.

It is unfortunate that the views do not match in some places but that probably reflects the underlying ethos behind the advisers.

But anyone "settling" with HMRC should be aware that HMRC may resile(legally spring back) on the "settlement"? That is a possibility?

[webberg]

But anyone "settling" with HMRC should be aware that HMRC may resile(legally spring back) on the "settlement"? That is a possibility?

The principle behind a contract (any contract) is that the parties come to the table with clean hands.

In other words, if issues are hidden or misrepresented, then the contract is not fair. If it's unfair because of this reason, then either side can resile.

HMRC publishes the conditions upon which they settle and when they will renege.

This is why it is important to read - VERY CAREFULLY - the terms of any contract, tax or otherwise, as very often the conditions upon which the agreement has been reached are spelt out fully and carefully as are the effect of the contract on future events.

HMRC does not give any assurance as to the future tax treatment of any transaction. This is contrary to policy. Thus in the present situation, whilst HMRC may say that no DR charge arises for years which are part of an earlier settlement but which attracted no tax charge (i.e. a closed year under CLSO 1), that would have been based on their understanding of the DR charge legislation at that time.

If that understanding changes, would HMRC be obliged to stand by their assurance?

I think not.

I think HMRC would seek to claim that the individual officer who agreed that item was acting outside policy or misunderstood or was inadequately trained. If you want a precedent, look at some of the cases around discovery.

So HMRC may have reason to resile from a contract or part of a contract.

Given their history over the past decade or so, would anybody trust them not to find any excuse to do that?

[BrilloPad]

I think HMRC would seek to claim that the individual officer who agreed that item was acting outside policy or misunderstood or was inadequately trained.

I would like to think that would be HMRC's issue.

I think I might write a letter to someone about this. As soon is the nurse gives me my meds and hands the crayons over.....

[PaulA71]

..

Am in exactly the same boat. Would appreciate advice

[Seryozha]

Am in exactly the same boat. Would appreciate advice

HMRC are gathering data from a sample of this scheme’s users. As yet they have not stated a concrete determination as to whether they believe the scheme worked/s though clearly their approach is to look for evidence that fits their view of tax avoidance. The introducers refer any direct requests for information to the lawyers and the arguments are as the introducers would have sold the scheme on. If you have been asked for information, I suggest you need to get a second opinion to ensure you don’t worsen your position. But you must respond to HMRC in time.

If you haven’t been asked for information, in the absence of a successful legal challenge, HMRC will of course continue to issue tax return compliance check notices in time to protect their position to pursue a future claim. Working out the potential liability looks very complex (as some of my years are out of the 12 month time limit to enquire) and for that reason I will use professional services if WTT to settle, when it is established conclusively that settlement is the only option.

Seems the mitigation right now is the time it will take for the scheme to be successfully challenged or for some other premise to be used to demand tax and using that time to work out a response to HMRC when they do follow up on their enquiries. For some, this may mean voluntarily settling ahead that. But with advice!


For now

[Crewey]

Walter, can you help?

Hi Walter, I have just received a similar letter regarding Via Trade. Any chance you could help? (sorry can't PM)

Thanks

Dave

[AlbertEinstein]

Same Boat

Hey All,

I've just received a letter from HMRC advising that they're intending to enquire into my SA for Year ending 5th April 2015.

They state the following on the letter:

"I understand that you may have participated in arrangements promoted by Via Trade Consultants in the period of my enquiry. My enquiry relates to those arrangements. However, when I look at this aspect I may find that I need to extend my check. If this happens I will let you know."

They then go on to mention the 'Tempted by Ta Avoidance' publication, and that they are looking into arrangements and transactions undertaken as part of the tax avoidance scheme...

Does anyone have any advice on this, or has also received a similar letter?

To my knowledge, this was an umbrella company, not a tax avoidance scheme???

Thanks

Yes I have had a letter as well …. have you been able to contact VIA?

[AlbertEinstein]

Ditto - how did this turn out for you ?

Hey All,

I've just received a letter from HMRC advising that they're intending to enquire into my SA for Year ending 5th April 2015.

They state the following on the letter:

"I understand that you may have participated in arrangements promoted by Via Trade Consultants in the period of my enquiry. My enquiry relates to those arrangements. However, when I look at this aspect I may find that I need to extend my check. If this happens I will let you know."

They then go on to mention the 'Tempted by Ta Avoidance' publication, and that they are looking into






arrangements and transactions undertaken as part of the tax avoidance scheme...




Does anyone have any advice on this, or has also received a similar letter?

To my knowledge, this was an umbrella company, not a tax avoidance scheme???

Thanks

I was under the same impression - can we discuss?

[DaveB]

I was under the same impression - can we discuss?

Without wanting to be a doom merchant, if they did anything other than pay you as an employee under PAYE with full income tax and NI deductions paid on your actual daily rate, plus a fee for managing, this then they were not an Umbrella Company.

If your taxable income for PAYE purposes was anything less than your actual daily rate minus some legitimate, and genuinely incurred expenses, then there was an avoidance scheme being operated.