AM Limited COP8 HMRC Investigation Letter..

[DonkeyRhubarb]

You need to have received an APN to join a JR.

The question is when do AML want the £250 from people? Now or when people receive APNs?

I suspect it might be now because the costs of a JR are front-loaded.

The only reason Saleos doesn't need to collect money up-front from people is because the initial JR costs are covered by other schemes he represents.

[carling]

I think it is now confirmed that a demand stayed behind an injunction will not also delay the penalty dates which remain as originally set.

Hi Webberg,

Has this definatley been confirmed now ? If so, is it also a definate that if you win your tax case at tribunal, you will still be hit with the penalties from the withdrawn APN.

[webberg]

Hi Webberg,

Has this definatley been confirmed now ? If so, is it also a definate that if you win your tax case at tribunal, you will still be hit with the penalties from the withdrawn APN.

No and no.

My understanding is that in the context of the JR/injunction case submitted the judge has expressed a view that the penalty will still be applicable in the event that the JR is unsuccessful.

That JR is potentially a narrow one, concerning a film scheme. It probably has a set of specific conditions and circumstances. Whether the Judge is subsequently found to be correct in his view has yet to be tested. I suspect this will come out in the hearing in May/June.

(I don't want to say too much because JR decisions are often not published and I want to retain some goodwill with my sources).

An APN penalty is based on the value of the APN. If the APN is reduced to NIL, then the penalty is also NIL.

If the APN is withdrawn (and can that even happen?) then again it effectively becomes NIL and no penalty can apply.

[regron]

The £250 towards JR is only being asked for from those who are no longer using AML. If you are crazy enough to still be using their schemes, then you don't have to make this additional payment.

A case of ensuring you don't bite the hand that feeds you I suppose !

However, it does make you wonder what figures they may ask for from ex-members, if and when they hit litigation !

[ads1980]

The £250 towards JR is only being asked for from those who are no longer using AML. If you are crazy enough to still be using their schemes, then you don't have to make this additional payment.

A case of ensuring you don't bite the hand that feeds you I suppose !

However, it does make you wonder what figures they may ask for from ex-members, if and when they hit litigation !

I'm no longer using AML and haven't for years. I haven't yet received my APN although I imagine it's not far away. It has gone full circle this though from being sold as a fully compliant HMRC scheme to being told that AML would fight the APN battle all the way through to FTT and beyond yet they are now asking us for money to fund this.

[regron]

I'm no longer using AML and haven't for years. I haven't yet received my APN although I imagine it's not far away. It has gone full circle this though from being sold as a fully compliant HMRC scheme to being told that AML would fight the APN battle all the way through to FTT and beyond yet they are now asking us for money to fund this.

They are still saying they will pay for ex and current members to fight through litigation at no extra cost. Although it seems the goal posts may have changed now, as they didn't foresee having to pay for a JR (this scenario isn't any different to what other scheme providers have said IMO).

As an ex member also, my main concern now is it is evident that further charges will probably occur past FTT. Again, it is all about group representation, so the more of us that stick with it and see this through, the cheaper it will be for all of us and still I am sure a lot cheaper than coughing up !!!

Despite the sudden change of events, I am still trying to remain positive in the fact we are one of the lucky ones where the provider is still around. It remains to be seen how long that will continue, but I am still glad to be riding that wave at this point.

However, I suppose it comes down to whether or not the waves become too high for individuals to handle, or the board breaks before you get that option !

[DotasScandal]

They are still saying they will pay for ex and current members to fight through litigation at no extra cost. Although it seems the goal posts may have changed now, as they didn't foresee having to pay for a JR (this scenario isn't any different to what other scheme providers have said IMO).

As an ex member also, my main concern now is it is evident that further charges will probably occur past FTT. Again, it is all about group representation, so the more of us that stick with it and see this through, the cheaper it will be for all of us and still I am sure a lot cheaper than coughing up !!!

Despite the sudden change of events, I am still trying to remain positive in the fact we are one of the lucky ones where the provider is still around. It remains to be seen how long that will continue, but I am still glad to be riding that wave at this point.

However, I suppose it comes down to whether or not the waves become too high for individuals to handle, or the board breaks before you get that option !

Absolutely agree.
The waves may be wild, but I'm positive the tide will turn soon enough.
Hang in there, guys - and keep your wallets tightly shut! (unless it's for the cause, of course )

[regron]

Absolutely agree.
The waves may be wild, but I'm positive the tide will turn soon enough.
Hang in there, guys - and keep your wallets tightly shut! (unless it's for the cause, of course )

Exactly....you only have to see what the perseverance and determination from the NTRT posse has resulted in. That alone should make people want to fight on !! (personal circumstances allowing of course).

United we (may) conquer, divided we (will) fall !!

[LandRover]

They are still saying they will pay for ex and current members to fight through litigation at no extra cost. Although it seems the goal posts may have changed now, as they didn't foresee having to pay for a JR (this scenario isn't any different to what other scheme providers have said IMO).

As an ex member also, my main concern now is it is evident that further charges will probably occur past FTT. Again, it is all about group representation, so the more of us that stick with it and see this through, the cheaper it will be for all of us and still I am sure a lot cheaper than coughing up !!!

Despite the sudden change of events, I am still trying to remain positive in the fact we are one of the lucky ones where the provider is still around. It remains to be seen how long that will continue, but I am still glad to be riding that wave at this point.

However, I suppose it comes down to whether or not the waves become too high for individuals to handle, or the board breaks before you get that option !

Agree, I am an ex-member and £250 is purely for the JR appeal according to email I received, I just wanted clarity of why pay if not yet an APN received. I expect one, but when I don't know. I will pay the £250 as it's far cheaper to stick to a group than go it alone imho.

Who would have thought that a government would bring about retrospective legislation when it goes against the rule of law. One major lesson learnt is that no one can EVER trust the political establishment to be fair minded.

[webberg]

Who would have thought that a government would bring about retrospective legislation when it goes against the rule of law. One major lesson learnt is that no one can EVER trust the political establishment to be fair minded.

It's NOT retrospective.

It says that from xx/xx/14, if tax is in dispute then the Government will hold it until the dispute is settled.

So only if tax is in dispute at xx/xx/14 does it bite.

I know it feels like retrospection. I know HMRC should have got off their ar$e and done something before it got to this point. I know it feels unfair. But it's not retrospection in the way of s 58 et al.

that makes it hard to resist on legal and constitutional grounds and therefore you have to find a way of getting your cases to Tribunal quickly.