Letter from HMRC regarding possible involvement in Tax avoidance

[Fred Bloggs]

Fascinating, Google doesn't seem to have heard of them. The nearest hit is on page two and is an American credit card payment gateway, or something. Piques my interest no end.

Interesting taking a look at their last filed company accounts at Companies House. I am not saying anything here other than I found it interesting reading.

[northernladuk]

Fascinating, Google doesn't seem to have heard of them. The nearest hit is on page two and is an American credit card payment gateway, or something. Piques my interest no end.

Looking at their company house details the director is 'Brian Alan Robert CRELLIN' he's listed as having three LTDs. One being struck off. Interesting looking at Boardman Solutions LTD. A relative called Brian Crellin joined on the 25th May... Country of residence... Isle of Man? Coincidence?

So in response to the OP's post, I can't see anything on google that says that email and telephone number are genuine so I'd be checking with HMRC directly to see if it's legitimate... BUT is contacting HMRC proof you received it and changes anything? I dunno.

But the fact there is someone involved, albeit very tenuously, that is in the Isle of Man then maybe it is HMRC and they are interested for a valid reason.

[Fred Bloggs]

Looking at their company house details the director is 'Brian Alan Robert CRELLIN' he's listed as having three LTDs. One being struck off. Interesting looking at Boardman Solutions LTD. A relative called Brian Crellin joined on the 25th May... Country of residence... Isle of Man? Coincidence?

So in response to the OP's post, I can't see anything on google that says that email and telephone number are genuine so I'd be checking with HMRC directly to see if it's legitimate... BUT is contacting HMRC proof you received it and changes anything? I dunno.

But the fact there is someone involved, albeit very tenuously, that is in the Isle of Man then maybe it is HMRC and they are interested for a valid reason.

Yes, fascinating. And any agency doing a bit of simple due diligence would see a UK registered company. So that box would get a tick.

[eek]

I will post this link now and post a full reply in the morning

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/thoma...762298368-_cbU

you may wish to point your agency at that message it highlights hmrc’s current stance which is they are seriously looking at jail time for faking documents

[Fred Bloggs]

I will post this link now and post a full reply in the morning

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/thoma...762298368-_cbU

you may wish to point your agency at that message it highlights hmrc’s current stance which is they are seriously looking at jail time for faking documents

Thanks, but at least for me, I cannot view that without a LinkedIn log in which I don't have and I don't want. Looking forward to the next post on this.

[eek]

Thanks, but at least for me, I cannot view that without a LinkedIn log in which I don't have and I don't want. Looking forward to the next post on this.

In which case I will post this bit

"where, pursuing an avoidance scheme, reliance is placed on a false or altered document or such reliance or material facts are misrepresented to enhance the credibility of a scheme"

"where deliberate concealment, deception, conspiracy or corruption is suspected"

"in cases involving the use of false or forged documents"

If HMRC convict the orchestrator of a disguised remuneration scheme, those in the supply chain may be guilty of the corporate offence of failing to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion. That is a strict liability offence with unlimited fine.

The above is true even if you aren't aware of the fraud being committed.

[Fred Bloggs]

In which case I will post this bit



The above is true even if you aren't aware of the fraud being committed.

Thank you. There's little doubt in my mind that the professional practitioners and other associates who recommended these schemes who took the alleged commissions paid by scheme organisers should absolutely be brought to account. Those with professional accreditation in particular, should be struck off. However, the scheme promoters likely hiding in off shore jurisdictions look likely to yet again get away scott free. I don't expect HMRC with have any successful litigation to demonstrate application of these intentions. None of that helps to prevent naive or greedy individuals, even to this day, signing up to schemes intentionally or otherwise.

[eek]

Thank you. There's little doubt in my mind that the professional practitioners and other associates who recommended these schemes who took the alleged commissions paid by scheme organisers should absolutely be brought to account. Those with professional accreditation in particular, should be struck off. However, the scheme promoters likely hiding in off shore jurisdictions look likely to yet again get away scott free. I don't expect HMRC with have any successful litigation to demonstrate application of these intentions. None of that helps to prevent naive or greedy individuals, even to this day, signing up to schemes intentionally or otherwise.

I think the point here is to make pursuing offshore people worthwhile. At the moment HMRC sue them and that's the end of the matter, nothing really recovered.

That will no longer be the case - sue the offshore people and with the guilty verdict they can recover all the money from the agents and end clients who used the umbrella. Th entire point here is to provide a second means of recovery that isn't just going after the "innocent" contractor. And in a lot of the modern stories the contractor is (or at least initially was) completely innocent.

[DealorNoDeal]

I find it hard to understand how any scheme is still able to operate.

They must rely on recruitment agencies being lax (or complicit).

I know, in the past, schemes used UK front companies to try and make themselves look like regular brollies but surely agencies aren't still falling for that?

[eek]

Hello everyone.

I am looking for some advice, if possible.

I have gotten the HMRC letter saying you may be involved in a possible tax avoidance scheme.

However I get my weekly payment all as a single sum and when looking at my payslip tax and NI appear to be correct.

I am posting the important parts from the payslip bellow. Any advice on this would be much appreciated. Thank you in advance.

I am paid weekly.

Weekly pay 2122.25

Deductions:
Tax 584.20
National insurance 116.76
Pension 42.25
Umbrella fee 15.0
Total: 758.31

Taxable gross pay:
2064.90

Employer national insurance:
267.34

Net pay:
1363.94

The same tax/NI deductions are visible on the HMRC personal tax account. Thank you again for the help.

So this is what we know:-

We don't know the umbrella company and it doesn't have a web presence.
HMRC have ran their agency report for January to March and discovered what they think is a problem.
Your payslip doesn't make sense
Taxable gross pay should be Weekly pay - Employer NI - Employer pension contribution - umbrella fee (and it isn't).

As I've asked this before but you haven't answered I will ask this again - what is the daily assignment rate the agency is paying you - as that will explain what is really going on here.