Murray Group decision 5th July

[webberg]

https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/future-judgments.html

[webberg]

I should add, courtesy of a BG member who spotted it before I did.

[BrilloPad]

https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/future-judgments.html

Any view as to which way it will go? Is it a 50/50?

[webberg]

I have previously stuck my neck out on this and have £100 to charity riding on the outcome.

My view is that the Court will uphold the liability shown in the Reg 80 assessments.

I'm more interested in why that is the case than the actual decision.

I can see that the taxpayer may win if the Supreme Court holds that the late argument made by HMRC should be excluded, i.e. a technicality. That would be more interesting than an HMRC victory as it would possibly push back a lot of ground HMRC think they have made in recent years.

[WalterWhite]

I have previously stuck my neck out on this and have £100 to charity riding on the outcome.

My view is that the Court will uphold the liability shown in the Reg 80 assessments.

I'm more interested in why that is the case than the actual decision.

I can see that the taxpayer may win if the Supreme Court holds that the late argument made by HMRC should be excluded, i.e. a technicality. That would be more interesting than an HMRC victory as it would possibly push back a lot of ground HMRC think they have made in recent years.

What would this mean for the people already with APN's and those that have settled?

Understand if you can't/won't answer on a public forum

[webberg]

What would this mean for the people already with APN's and those that have settled?

Understand if you can't/won't answer on a public forum

Those who have settled have settled. The decision will not affect them at all.

If you have had an APN and paid it, that is a much more difficult question.

I do have a view and it's one that I think is strongly pointing towards making a claim on HMRC for a repayment. However the detail and reasoning is why I get paid elsewhere and I cannot really go further here.

[WalterWhite]

Those who have settled have settled. The decision will not affect them at all.

If you have had an APN and paid it, that is a much more difficult question.

I do have a view and it's one that I think is strongly pointing towards making a claim on HMRC for a repayment. However the detail and reasoning is why I get paid elsewhere and I cannot really go further here.

Wow! Interesting stuff, thanks for giving as much information as you have, it is appreciated.

that really would put the cat among the pigeons

[Not Losing Any Sleep]

Wow! Interesting stuff, thanks for giving as much information as you have, it is appreciated.

that really would put the cat among the pigeons

The draft decision will be with respective barristers who will be forwarding corrections to the SC Justices. It is possible that the senior honchos at HMRC will also be in the loop but they will be expected to be discrete. If we get very cocky press releases from HMRC on Monday or Tuesday you might infer which way the decision will go. Some key text from one of the justices. "The question isn't was it tax avoidance, clearly it was. The question is does it work?".

[CDJ]

Those who have settled have settled. The decision will not affect them at all.

If you have had an APN and paid it, that is a much more difficult question.

I do have a view and it's one that I think is strongly pointing towards making a claim on HMRC for a repayment. However the detail and reasoning is why I get paid elsewhere and I cannot really go further here.

With respect Webberg, I disagree.

For the majority of contractors using the typical EBT structure (ie payment from a UKCo to an offshore trust, loan to UK resident), this judgement will have little to no bearing on their case.

We went through this when everyone got excited with the UTT result.

This particular case has a very defined set of circumstances, where the only similarity is that the players were paid via an EBT Loan. The trust set-up was certainly quite different to most of the EBT Contractor schemes I have heard detail on (AML, Cascade etc).

The other point to note, is that this case makes no reference to Transfer of Assets Abroad, which is the key piece of legislation that HMRC were looking to deploy against the typical EBT scheme.

As such, whilst this judgement "may" solidify the courts view of whether a specific EBT structured "loan" is a loan in law, I doubt it will have much bearing on the point of law that HMRC will argue against the typical contractor EBT structure. It'll certainly be helpful, but if HMRC are looking to ping you on the payment to the trust, then whatever happens post that point is irrelevant, no?

[Not Losing Any Sleep]

With respect Webberg, I disagree.

For the majority of contractors using the typical EBT structure (ie payment from a UKCo to an offshore trust, loan to UK resident), this judgement will have little to no bearing on their case.

We went through this when everyone got excited with the UTT result.

This particular case has a very defined set of circumstances, where the only similarity is that the players were paid via an EBT Loan. The trust set-up was certainly quite different to most of the EBT Contractor schemes I have heard detail on (AML, Cascade etc).

The other point to note, is that this case makes no reference to Transfer of Assets Abroad, which is the key piece of legislation that HMRC were looking to deploy against the typical EBT scheme.

As such, whilst this judgement "may" solidify the courts view of whether a specific EBT structured "loan" is a loan in law, I doubt it will have much bearing on the point of law that HMRC will argue against the typical contractor EBT structure. It'll certainly be helpful, but if HMRC are looking to ping you on the payment to the trust, then whatever happens post that point is irrelevant, no?

I'm not so sure, but the devil will be in the detail. Given that it was a SC anything they say will potentially have weight for other cases. It will depend on how far the SC want to go in defining the landscape around trusts and loans; everyone at the hearing agreed that was one of their tasks. Will they for example try and dismiss or ratify important case law, Dextra, Semple, etc. etc? Thornhill made reference to imminent legislation having effect in 2019, as in: "it's not technically relevant but you have a backstop if you chose to allow the appeal". Judges normally like intellectual arguments and the application of law over sentiment which might give them an instinct to overturn their Scottish chums who favoured sentiment. Odds are the appeal will be dismissed. Edge of the seat stuff on Wednesday.