MP Greg Mulholland. EBT mis-selling

**BrilloPad** · 2 May 2017, 12:29

Since parliament reports to HMRC I can't see this getting anywhere.

NTRT tried very hard with a lobbying campaign and got nowhere.

An MPs early day motion is worth about the same as one of my early day motions after a day of eating fruit.

I hope it will be different this time.

**northernladyuk** · 2 May 2017, 13:12

Originally posted by BrilloPad View Post

Since parliament reports to HMRC

No it doesn't.

**SueEllen** · 2 May 2017, 13:15

Originally posted by BrilloPad View Post

Since parliament reports to HMRC I can't see this getting anywhere.

HMRC report to parliament but only when the relevant minister is asked a question or it involves a select committee.

**WalterWhite** · 2 May 2017, 13:28

Were the EBT's actually miss-sold?

Or have HMRC just introduced new legislation that mean they can now issue contractors with a tax bill?

I used a scheme and don't feel I was miss-sold at all. Everything I was told upon joining was correct.

**webberg** · 2 May 2017, 13:52

Originally posted by SueEllen View Post

HMRC report to parliament but only when the relevant minister is asked a question or it involves a select committee.

No it doesn't.

HMRC is an agency of H M Treasury and reports to the Chancellor.

H M Treasury reports to Parliament.

HMRC is called before Public Accounts Committee regularly (and always deflects the real questions as MPs are more concerned about why the phone is not answered) and reports on certain matters there.

**woftam** · 3 May 2017, 11:43

Originally posted by WalterWhite View Post

Were the EBT's actually miss-sold?

Or have HMRC just introduced new legislation that mean they can now issue contractors with a tax bill?

I used a scheme and don't feel I was miss-sold at all. Everything I was told upon joining was correct.

Certainly interesting and debatable.
Claims to the effect of "we are HMRC compliant" and "we are operating within the current legal framework" are some that come to mind.
If the above was true then why are we all in this situation. If legislation can retrospectively change laws then surely that affects statements that we were sold on as well, it needs to be the big picture not just part of it.

**BrilloPad** · 3 May 2017, 11:45

Originally posted by webberg View Post

No it doesn't.

HMRC is an agency of H M Treasury and reports to the Chancellor.

H M Treasury reports to Parliament.

HMRC is called before Public Accounts Committee regularly (and always deflects the real questions as MPs are more concerned about why the phone is not answered) and reports on certain matters there.

Only on a technicality. Parliament rarely questions HMRC on what they do and how they behave.

**WalterWhite** · 3 May 2017, 12:56

Originally posted by woftam View Post

Certainly interesting and debatable.
Claims to the effect of "we are HMRC compliant" and "we are operating within the current legal framework" are some that come to mind.
If the above was true then why are we all in this situation. If legislation can retrospectively change laws then surely that affects statements that we were sold on as well, it needs to be the big picture not just part of it.

"we are HMRC compliant" and "we are operating within the current legal framework"

those were true (and I think/hope still are for the scheme I used)

With regards to retrospective legislation, playing devils advocate here, would it be fair to say that IFA's should cease selling pension and savings products because the rules could retrospectively change? Of course not.

I will admit that if my provider wasn't still around and (currently) helping their clients I may take a different view on things!

**webberg** · 3 May 2017, 12:57

Arguably PAC forced Hartnett to resign over his dealings with a well known bank.

They also managed to spectacularly confuse Ms Homer on a number of occasions.

The big difficulty is that HMRC always has the "taxpayer confidentiality" argument to hide behind.

MP Greg Mulholland. EBT mis-selling