Track the Finance Bill 2020-21 here

[webberg]

HMRC seem to win most tribunals which involve schemes.

I'm certainly not aware of any contractor schemes which have been successful* at tribunal. Even the cases which tried a different approach (eg. the employer was liable for the PAYE) have all failed.

* by successful, I mean the contractor wasn't liable for any additional tax

Think you'll find that this is not the case.

The cases post Rangers are all sub judice and there is a long way to go.

[DealorNoDeal]

Failed so far then.

I expect it will end up in the Supreme Court, assuming any of the groups have the appetite, or the ££££££, for that.

HMRC will certainly fight it all the way.

[lowpaidworker]

Pretty strong reaction to the APPG report on the independence of the SAM review of the 2019LC. Some of this is absolutly shocking interference by HMRC and HMT.

I dont think we have heard the last of this.

[webberg]

Failed so far then.

I expect it will end up in the Supreme Court, assuming any of the groups have the appetite, or the ££££££, for that.

HMRC will certainly fight it all the way.

I know I'm being pedantic here, but it's important.

The various schemes were designed to take advantage of tax laws as they were at the time. Some of them also considered the then judicial principles and how the structure might resist them.

The shift in attitudes to tax avoidance (engineered by HMRC's PR machine), successive and multiple additions to anti avoidance law, judicial principles preferring substance over form and frankly bad faith (loan charge) and behaviour (too many examples to list) from HMRC has rendered the original tax analysis (QC "approved" or otherwise) behind the schemes impossible to argue in Tribunal with any credible chance of success.

Hence we see all groups litigating the schemes moving towards the "next best" defence. In general this is the PAYE credit argument.

HMRC could have chosen to go to Tribunal and argue that the credit is not due. They have not done that (so far). Instead they went to Tribunal and argued that the FTT has no jurisdiction to even discuss why that credit is not due where HMRC has exercised its claimed discretion. The FTT agreed and therefore the issue of the reasonableness of the exercise of the discretion became a Judicial Review point.

That is being pursued separately and is probably sub judice (undecided).

So the question of whether the PAYE credit is due or not has not been decided. It has not "failed".

There is much mileage in the cases yet which I agree will require funding and will probably go to Supreme Court.

[DealorNoDeal]

Out of interest, do you know what happened following the Rangers Supreme Court decision? As in, who are HMRC now pursuing for the tax; the club (employer) or the players (employees) who received the loans?

[webberg]

Out of interest, do you know what happened following the Rangers Supreme Court decision? As in, who are HMRC now pursuing for the tax; the club (employer) or the players (employees) who received the loans?

I don't know I'm afraid.

[DealorNoDeal]

I don't know I'm afraid.

If HMRC were pursuing the former players, some of whom may have been facing bankruptcy, I would have expected it to have received some press attention but I haven't seen anything reported since the time of the SC decision.

If, on the other hand, HMRC have accepted that it is the employer who is liable then it would beg the question why they won't treat contractors in the same way (other than them choosing not to of course!).

It would be interesting to know.

[webberg]

If HMRC were pursuing the former players, some of whom may have been facing bankruptcy, I would have expected it to have received some press attention but I haven't seen anything reported since the time of the SC decision.

If, on the other hand, HMRC have accepted that it is the employer who is liable then it would beg the question why they won't treat contractors in the same way (other than them choosing not to of course!).

It would be interesting to know.

As I said the assessments were on the EMPLOYER.

The liability can be transferred via Reg 81 but there are a number of conditions to be met. I suspect that HMRC may have struggled with those.

Further the players were mainly non resident? Chasing a person in outside the UK is not as easy as you might think.

The question behind all of this is perhaps:

If in Rangers, HMRC decided that the EMPLOYER was the primarily liable party (and not just convenient) then why have they not followed that route with other EMPLOYERS?

[DealorNoDeal]

If in Rangers, HMRC decided that the EMPLOYER was the primarily liable party (and not just convenient) then why have they not followed that route with other EMPLOYERS?

Pure expediency I expect.

[DealorNoDeal]

My sister's husband used to work for them. He's a nasty piece of work but that's by the by.

Anyway, he said they will view the PAYE credit argument as gaming the system (plebs taking the piss were his words) and they'll do anything to nobble it.