Another Consulting Overseas Victim?

[ChimpMaster]

The trouble is, HMRC think the case against me IS closed. I've paid my money and they've promised not to come after me for any more AND to refund it all should they fail to take or prove a case before the Special Commissioners.

However, it doesn't seem particularly fair - not that fairness seems to factor in anything HMRC do - that the non-settlers seem to have got off scott-free without paying a penny to date. As far as I know all that has happened is that HMRC have offered them the same deal that the original settlers got 5 years ago ! and there seems no evidence that any action is being taken.

But what % of the tax demand was the settlement? i.e. if the tax demand from HMRC was £50k then what % of that did they settle for?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Reading the history of this case makes me wonder whether HMRC ever had any real intention of taking this matter to court.

Nothing would surprise me when it comes to their deviousness.

Certainly if I was one of the ones who had settled I might feel like I had been duped into paying up.

[aviator]

But what % of the tax demand was the settlement? i.e. if the tax demand from HMRC was £50k then what % of that did they settle for?

It didn't really work like that. HMRC calculated what - in their opinion - was the unpaid tax and that was the settlement figure I eventually paid. The only flexibility given was that there were no penalties or interest added for late payment. I tried through my accountant to negotiate the eventual figure but HMRC would not enter into any dialogue.

[ChimpMaster]

It didn't really work like that. HMRC calculated what - in their opinion - was the unpaid tax and that was the settlement figure I eventually paid. The only flexibility given was that there were no penalties or interest added for late payment. I tried through my accountant to negotiate the eventual figure but HMRC would not enter into any dialogue.

OK now I understand why you're so frustrated over this. So in fact HMRC didn't reach a settlement, they just proper screwed you for the whole lot.

It's a tough one though. I mean in that position some might be tempted to pay up to relieve the stress, especially with the promise of refund if HMRC's attack fails.

The BN66 thread has taught us to get a CTD instead of paying up. I may be tempted to go that way.

It's quite clear though that HMRC are completed lost, confused and inundated on this whole avoidance issue. Their scare tactics hold very little sway these days.

[BrunoRuby]

Sandfield Systems Ltd/Consulting Overseas Ltd Status

I have hypothesized for some time that a deal between Consulting Overseas/Paul Bishop and HMRC may well have been brokered and that Chilterns are no longer on the case but have no evidence. I was however interested to see that it is thought that Sandfield and CO are both in administration, what evidence is there to support this?

A simple check of UK Companies house reveals that both Sandfield Systems Ltd and Consulting Overseas Ltd have both been in liquidation since 2008.

[BrunoRuby]

Credex/Sandfield

If the IR have actually established that Credex and Sanfield were under common ownership then I presume that does invalidate the scheme so why havn't they either taken the matter to the special comissioners to get their money off the non-settlers or chased up the directors of Sanfield for perpetrating a fraud. The fact they haven't tells me that the IR haven't in fact established this.

Reading below I can't see why Credex and Sanfield could not have both been completely separate companies and both still made a legitimate profit.

With the benefit of hindsight, it is not possible for both Credex and Sandfield to have made a legitimate profit. Forward currency contracts are a zero-sum game, in that for anyone to make a profit, someone else has to make a loss. So, we are asked to believe that Sandfield made huge profits on a regular basis on these contracts without ever incurring a loss. The counterparty (presumably Credex) would have to make the loss for Sandfield to make a profit. So, either Credex accepted ongoing massive losses on the deals, or both were under common ownership and the whole thing was a fraudulent paper exercise.

Other research has revealed that the forward rates quoted on Credex documentation were not commercially available at the time in question.

All the evidence points to common ownership, and fraud. Now, whether that can be proven or not is, of course, a different matter.

[aviator]

With the benefit of hindsight, it is not possible for both Credex and Sandfield to have made a legitimate profit. Forward currency contracts are a zero-sum game, in that for anyone to make a profit, someone else has to make a loss. So, we are asked to believe that Sandfield made huge profits on a regular basis on these contracts without ever incurring a loss. The counterparty (presumably Credex) would have to make the loss for Sandfield to make a profit. So, either Credex accepted ongoing massive losses on the deals, or both were under common ownership and the whole thing was a fraudulent paper exercise.

Other research has revealed that the forward rates quoted on Credex documentation were not commercially available at the time in question.

All the evidence points to common ownership, and fraud. Now, whether that can be proven or not is, of course, a different matter.

I agree with everything you say. <mod snip> My point is, if this is so clear-cut why has it taken HMRC so long to take a case before the Special Commissioners and go after the non-settlers?

[BrunoRuby]

I agree with everything you say. <mod snip> My point is, if this is so clear-cut why has it taken HMRC so long to take a case before the Special Commissioners and go after the non-settlers?

I'm not a lawyer so I've no idea why they have taken so long. Another question, if it is so clear cut, is why did they not pursue Bishopp and the other Sandfield directors for tax fraud and recover the tax from Sandfield Systems Ltd, a UK company that was responsible for operating PAYE. They could have done this as long ago as 2004, when they started their investigation, long before Sandfield went into liquidation.

[ChimpMaster]

I'm not a lawyer so I've no idea why they have taken so long. <snip>

Anything to do with the fact that the longer HMRC leave it, the more chance they have of getting the laws changed, as well as being able to charge interest as long as they can keep you under investigation.

For example, proposals for Finance Act 2010 contain some hefty increases in penalties.

[overtaxed]

I paid up too

Just stumbled upon this forum. I'm another one who paid a lot of money to HMRC hoping I may some day see it again.

Has anything at all happened in the courts? I see no updates on the Sandfield site for years....