AM Limited COP8 HMRC Investigation Letter..

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Trying to get the whole APN edifice pulled down is based on various EU rules. Personally I have very little confidence that such challenges will succeed.

Me neither but I'm glad someone is having a go.

Maybe, just maybe, the judiciary might take a dim view that there is no legal right of appeal against APNs.

[webberg]

Yes, unfortunately a delay, rather than a conclusion. The issue with it just being a payment on account though is the fact it will take years to reach a conclusion as HMRC won't be in a rush to settle and by then it will have been way too late for people who are made bankrupt, had lives ruined by a very draconian and devious way to close such schemes. I am all for drawing a line in the sand and saying from Day x, you will be punished if you use them, but to punish the use of DOTAS schemes in the way they are doing in my opinion, is out of order.

In your opinion/experience Webberg (although I appreciate it is probably an open ended question) how long would you expect an average APN tribunal to take to come to a conclusion, bearing in mind the massive backlog this will cause in adding to such a delay ?

The experience from film schemes is that going for the full litigation journey, perhaps 10 to 14 years from original investment.

I think that if a more sensible approach is taken by HMRC and providers then perhaps 3 years from now to first decision that can be regarded as determinative and perhaps another 3 to final decision.

I'll share some thoughts on another area of tax avoidance later.

I do fear that once HMRC has the cash, then they have no incentive to push and and taxpayers will have to be far more assertive in order to get resolution.

[LandRover]

The experience from film schemes is that going for the full litigation journey, perhaps 10 to 14 years from original investment.

I think that if a more sensible approach is taken by HMRC and providers then perhaps 3 years from now to first decision that can be regarded as determinative and perhaps another 3 to final decision.

I'll share some thoughts on another area of tax avoidance later.

I do fear that once HMRC has the cash, then they have no incentive to push and and taxpayers will have to be far more assertive in order to get resolution.

That's depressing reading for all concerned. The APN were supposed to be driven by existing cases of law. To suddenly start sending APN demand out then what case of law are they using?

More realistic settlement terms would be a better approach from HMRC. But with the government making funds available to HMRC then it seems there is no incentive for them to offer better settlement terms, its a job for life for many in the HMRC.

[DotasScandal]

I do fear that once HMRC has the cash, then they have no incentive to push and and taxpayers will have to be far more assertive in order to get resolution.

Obviously.
In the case of those of us that had already initiated judicial proceedings in order to have the legality of a scheme determined, a change of attitude on the part of HMRC could be noticed as soon as the APN/FN legislation was introduced. It would seem that HMRC went from a *somewhat* professional attitude to a full-on passive-aggressive one.
Was it a surprise? no. But it is ironic to say the least, as one of the arguments to push the introduction of APNs was that it was to force taxpayers who "stall" to seek a prompt resolution through the courts.

One has a better chance of recovering money thrown into a black hole than money paid "on account" to HMRC.

[DotasScandal]

That's depressing reading for all concerned. The APN were supposed to be driven by existing cases of law. To suddenly start sending APN demand out then what case of law are they using?

Are you not confusing FNs and APNs here?

APNs need not be based on an existing case of law - having declared a DOTAS number and having an open enquiry/discovery is all that is needed to make you a target.

[webberg]

Are you not confusing FNs and APNs here?

APNs need not be based on an existing case of law - having declared a DOTAS number and having an open enquiry/discovery is all that is needed to make you a target.

Absolutely correct.

Do not confuse these notices as they have different consequences and challenges.

[webberg]

Obviously.
In the case of those of us that had already initiated judicial proceedings in order to have the legality of a scheme determined, a change of attitude on the part of HMRC could be noticed as soon as the APN/FN legislation was introduced. It would seem that HMRC went from a *somewhat* professional attitude to a full-on passive-aggressive one.
Was it a surprise? no. But it is ironic to say the least, as one of the arguments to push the introduction of APNs was that it was to force taxpayers who "stall" to seek a prompt resolution through the courts.

One has a better chance of recovering money thrown into a black hole than money paid "on account" to HMRC.

I'd agree with all of this except the final sentence. If money has been paid and is not due, then in my experience, HMRC take considerable care in tracking down and paying those who have overpaid.

[regron]

I'd agree with all of this except the final sentence. If money has been paid and is not due, then in my experience, HMRC take considerable care in tracking down and paying those who have overpaid.

Just a shame they will have ruined peoples lives to a possible point of no return, once the 6+ years of litigation has been and gone (assuming it came out in our favour of course)

[DotasScandal]

I'd agree with all of this except the final sentence. If money has been paid and is not due, then in my experience, HMRC take considerable care in tracking down and paying those who have overpaid.

I hear you, but will it still be the case in the current climate, with all the political pressure, and HMRC's under-resourcing?
Color me skeptical...

[flamel]

I'd agree with all of this except the final sentence. If money has been paid and is not due, then in my experience, HMRC take considerable care in tracking down and paying those who have overpaid.

However, I think HMRC will dispute that the money is not due, perhaps for many, many years. In my opinion, if HMRC think they are going to lose any of their cases, they will drag out proceedings for years, effectively not paying up.

In all of these retrospective tax actions, HMRC will do their best to keep the money that they think is due, which they've never been allowed to do before. Once they've got it I can't see ever getting any of it back, whatever the rights and wrongs. Every time HMRC are found to have behaved less than respectably, they try and wriggle out of the consequences and there are thousands of cases in the press demonstrating this.

Therefore, I think you've actually got more chance of getting your cash out of a black hole.