Overdrawn Capital Account Scheme (Aston Mae / Glen Mae / Procorre)

[frontmen242]

Just noticed on LinkedIn from Graham - WTT Procorre UK the following post... just to quote

"Active cases update - Procorre

It would seem that one of the Procorre entities - Procorre UK Ltd company number 07644727 - has applied for and been granted the appointment of a liquidator.

This is one of several Procorre entities which we believe may be liable for tax on sums paid to those who used their services.

We will therefore take some advice and in all probability make a claim on that liquidator.

If you have used Procorre and HMRC is chasing you, I would recommend a similar action."

[GregRickshaw]

Just noticed on LinkedIn from Graham - WTT Procorre UK the following post... just to quote

"Active cases update - Procorre

It would seem that one of the Procorre entities - Procorre UK Ltd company number 07644727 - has applied for and been granted the appointment of a liquidator.

This is one of several Procorre entities which we believe may be liable for tax on sums paid to those who used their services.

We will therefore take some advice and in all probability make a claim on that liquidator.

If you have used Procorre and HMRC is chasing you, I would recommend a similar action."

I'm sure Graham is excellent at his job and his knowledge is unquestioned. However I do wonder when these things pop up on LinkedIn if it's just another push of their services. I would say contact specialists only when one has been contacted rather than this approach WTT (and others) seem to have of 'poking the bear'.

[frontmen242]

I'm sure Graham is excellent at his job and his knowledge is unquestioned. However I do wonder when these things pop up on LinkedIn if it's just another push of their services. I would say contact specialists only when one has been contacted rather than this approach WTT (and others) seem to have of 'poking the bear'.

LOL I am all for not poking that particular bear....

[mightyspur]

Over 30 months since HMRC initially contacted me and I am still waiting for a settlement figure and I am still completely in the dark as to how HMRC are determining the amount they say I owe vs the income I received. I am still unable to reconcile the number they say I received as income in the period they are investigating by more than 100k and every day that goes by I am being charged daily interest

A few weeks ago, I also received a letter outlining penalty charges being considered. Although I consider I took 'reasonable care' throughout the process, at a minimum HMRC will categorise my actions as 'careless' or possibly even 'deliberate' despite asking questions and taking advice from my accountant before signing up. I have documented emails from Procorre saying it's not a "scheme", that HMRC do not care about as they are considered an interested party. Scammer/crook is probably a more accurate adjective.

It seems that the behaviour in Counter Avoidance is to automatically deem it as a minimum of careless, unless the person can demonstrate they took reasonable care and the bar to convince HMRC is exceptionally high e.g. proof I check the qualifications of the person giving the advice, double checking the advice given, checking if the accountant was/is a qualified Chartered Tax advisor, having the advice documented in writing etc.

The penalty charge, if deemed careless will be in the 15 - 30% range. Adding everything up, tax owed, penalty charge, interest, NICs etc I am currently estimating the total to be around 70% of my total income received over those years. Eye-watering amounts that hardly seems "fair".

[Iliketax]

Over 30 months since HMRC initially contacted me and I am still waiting for a settlement figure and I am still completely in the dark as to how HMRC are determining the amount they say I owe vs the income I received. I am still unable to reconcile the number they say I received as income in the period they are investigating by more than 100k and every day that goes by I am being charged daily interest

A few weeks ago, I also received a letter outlining penalty charges being considered. Although I consider I took 'reasonable care' throughout the process, at a minimum HMRC will categorise my actions as 'careless' or possibly even 'deliberate' despite asking questions and taking advice from my accountant before signing up. I have documented emails from Procorre saying it's not a "scheme", that HMRC do not care about as they are considered an interested party. Scammer/crook is probably a more accurate adjective.

It seems that the behaviour in Counter Avoidance is to automatically deem it as a minimum of careless, unless the person can demonstrate they took reasonable care and the bar to convince HMRC is exceptionally high e.g. proof I check the qualifications of the person giving the advice, double checking the advice given, checking if the accountant was/is a qualified Chartered Tax advisor, having the advice documented in writing etc.

The penalty charge, if deemed careless will be in the 15 - 30% range. Adding everything up, tax owed, penalty charge, interest, NICs etc I am currently estimating the total to be around 70% of my total income received over those years. Eye-watering amounts that hardly seems "fair".

I'm not commenting on your facts or about getting independent professional tax advice, but here's a recent FTT case in relation to what tax advice has actually been taken in relation to an EBT scheme (short answer= None). HMRC raised penalties of 21% of the tax due and the tribunal did not change that: https://assets.caselaw.nationalarchi...c_2024_787.pdf

[cojak]

I can’t help but think that HMRC consider an internet search by yourself to be included in due diligence, as this forum with it’s numerous warnings (amongst others) would have come up in that search. I know this as the Admin at that time was particularly hot on SEO.

This post from 2007 explain why: https://forums.contractoruk.com/gene...fit-trust.html

[cojak]

I'm not commenting on your facts or about getting independent professional tax advice, but here's a recent FTT case in relation to what tax advice has actually been taken in relation to an EBT scheme (short answer= None). HMRC raised penalties of 21% of the tax due and the tribunal did not change that: https://assets.caselaw.nationalarchi...c_2024_787.pdf

This is my beef with the argument presented - the accountant should have been in the dock and penalised along with the defendant. It was the accountant who introduced the scheme to Bray and so was obviously not an independent person to give advice, in fact they must have taken a hefty commission to persuade her to join. (And she didn’t think it was her business to ask about the accountant’s commission? Bloody hell, the naïvety! )

The accountant should have been sanctioned and their license revoked.

I know that it’s not part of the legislation but it bloody well should be.

[cojak]

(And welcome back ILikeTax!)

[GregRickshaw]

This is my beef with the argument presented - the accountant should have been in the dock and penalised along with the defendant. It was the accountant who introduced the scheme to Bray and so was obviously not an independent person to give advice, in fact they must have taken a hefty commission to persuade her to join. (And she didn’t think it was her business to ask about the accountant’s commission? Bloody hell, the naïvety! )

The accountant should have been sanctioned and their license revoked.

I know that it’s not part of the legislation but it bloody well should be.

How true and seemingly a potent of how the MSC outcomes/trials will go, innocents flogged in court, hounded, bankrupt, homeless (all manner of personal breakdown of family possibly even losses of life) accountants/scheme providers off scot free - again.

Debt transfer beyond directors of LTDs... - my arse ... it won't happen.

Get the accountants in the dock