Edge group litigation lost at FTT

[DealorNoDeal]

HMRC issued APNS to all scheme users as far as I am aware.

Is this FTT then just to solidify that. I mean an APN is just a payment on account so the result if it was final is not going to bring additional revenue for HMRC.

It was the Edge users who took the case to the FTT, not HMRC. If they'd won I presume the APNs would have fallen away and HMRC would have had to refund the advance payments.

[DealorNoDeal]

It almost feels like this TAA has become a bit like a scheme. (Backed by QC opinion, no doubt )

Starts off small.
Then there's a bandwagon effect, with others copying it.
Snowballs out of control.

Which usually ends with HMRC going all nuclear.

[More Lamb]

TAA

1. HMRC's (Tom Moore) counter-argument to TAA is that they claim to have the discretion to decide whether UK companies should have complied with the PAYE regs.
2. In the case of schemes, they're deeming that the UK companies didn't have to comply, and therefore scheme users are not entitled to any tax credit.
3. They're even giving a free PAYE pass to any UK intermediaries which were part of the scheme!
4. The stakes are very high for HMRC now. They'll take this all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.

[eek]

1. HMRC's (Tom Moore) counter-argument to TAA is that they claim to have the discretion to decide whether UK companies should have complied with the PAYE regs.
2. In the case of schemes, they're deeming that the UK companies didn't have to comply, and therefore scheme users are not entitled to any tax credit.
3. They're even giving a free PAYE pass to any UK intermediaries which were part of the scheme!
4. The stakes are very high for HMRC now. They'll take this all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.

True but HMRC aren't the ones who need to find money to move to the next stage of appeal - the Edge Group members do...

[More Lamb]

True but HMRC aren't the ones who need to find money to move to the next stage of appeal - the Edge Group members do...

There is that, although supposedly it does get a bit cheaper because most of the ground work/prep will have been done for the FTT. They'll probably still need to budget a few hundred £k to take it all the way to the Supreme Court, which won't be too onerous if there are enough members to spread the cost.

[lowpaidworker]

TAA ... transfer assets aborad I assume ?

Not sure I get the finer point of the arguement here. Is this all going back on the Rangers case ?

Also stakes high.. does that mean HMRC going down one route that might limit other cases ?

Sorry its a mine field but I guess you need to understand some of the basic principals if your caught up.

[eek]

TAA ... transfer assets aborad I assume ?

Not sure I get the finer point of the arguement here. Is this all going back on the Rangers case ?

Also stakes high.. does that mean HMRC going down one route that might limit other cases ?

Sorry its a mine field but I guess you need to understand some of the basic principals if your caught up.

It means "The Agency Argument" - I will leave it to others to explain it in more detail if anyone wants to as I'm sure I would get it wrong

[lowpaidworker]

It means "The Agency Argument" - I will leave it to others to explain it in more detail if anyone wants to as I'm sure I would get it wrong

thanks.

[webberg]

Just for information.

HMRC's ToAA argument, already demolished in FTT cases has just suffered another blow in a case called Fisher.

[More Lamb]

It means "The Agency Argument" - I will leave it to others to explain it in more detail if anyone wants to as I'm sure I would get it wrong

This is how I understand it but I may have got it wrong.

If an agency supplies a worker, and there is any supervision, direction or control, then the engagement is covered by the "agency legislation" and the agency must treat the worker as an employee (PAYE).

The agency legislation doesn't apply if the worker is provided to the agency by a Ltd Co. If the Ltd Co is a PSC then the separate IR35 legislation kicks in instead.