HMRC Enquiry letters on Loans from EBT and other schemes

[Fairweather]

EDGE and Advantage

I too received a letter this morning from our friends at HMRC.

Just to concur with others, I've received the same letter as posted on here from Edge, I tend to agree with the view that it says too much if anything. I'd rather just say I'm appealing and put the ball firmly back in HMRC's court.

One note of caution for fellow Edge users. For some reason they had a totally incorrect NI number on record for me. Not sure how this happened, but it would be wise to check the number on the letter the sent you.

I'm going to run through it with my own accountant tomorrow before sending it off.

[Penguin]

Vthomsen in answer to your question to shevlane (I am in the same TRM 2008/2009 boat). I am inclined to use the below:






"I wish to appeal against the 2008/09 Assessment recently issued.

I disagree that the amount assessed constitutes taxable income and I do not agree the figure issued.

I wish to apply for a full postponement of the tax demanded pending further clarification."

The above was posted by dannyc09 provided by TaxTalkUK.

And include the additional text (probably after the above suggested by DonkeyRhubarb):

"The postponement application should ensure that any amendments to payments on account and surcharges etc are taken into account."

At the moment this seems for my circumstances the best way forward. The other letters posted seem to be particular to other companies and as has been said getting the appeal in is the first important step.

Other thoughts from TRM people on the above?

I was with Sanzar who have disappeared so I am going to use the above template for my appeal letter. If they want more information they can ask me.

[Michael J Perry FCA]

Appeal letter

And how is Michael going to do that? I don't believe he's clairvoyant.

I would suggest to everyone out there wishing to make use of Michael's generous offer to actually be prepared to do a bit of work and not expect to be waited on hand and foot.

These are your tax affairs, take a bit of responsibility and do something yourself.

Try this.

Thank you for pointing that out and I am sorry that I cannot post it here as I am restricted by certain professional considerations. It is a very simple process and will take about 10 minutes. Having said that, it is only a very temporary fix for this one problem and the bigger issues will not disappear on their own. You can be sure of further HMRC action even if it takes them a while.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Public Accounts Committee report

House of Commons - Tax avoidance: tackling marketed avoidance schemes - Public Accounts Committee

Summary

"The number of cases it litigates is tiny compared to the number of enquiries."

"HMRC has a good success rate when it takes cases to court but the number of cases it litigates is tiny compared to the overall caseload."

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Another quote from the report.

"HMRC has a good rate of success when it does litigate, winning 51 out of the 60 cases it has litigated since April 2010. However, this number is tiny compared to the number of open enquiries. HMRC stated it has 8,000 live litigation cases, of which 1,000 involve tax avoidance."

[Michael J Perry FCA]

2008/09 appeal and likely action by HMRC to follow under Code of Practice 8

THE FOLLOWING IS A COPY OF MY LATEST CLIENT ALERT!

Notice to clients issued with an HMRC 2008/09 Section 29 TMA 1970 discovery assessment:

If you have recently received an assessment you have only 30 days to appeal and apply for postponement. If this deadline is missed, HMRC may not accept a late appeal.

Some clients that have received an assessment are already under investigation by HMRC and those that are currently not will be. This will be conducted under HMRC Code of Practice 8 a copy of which is attached. You should read this as it explains what is involved and your rights as a taxpayer.

These investigations have all been on-going for a number of years and are conducted or controlled by HMRC Specialist Investigations Office (Fraud and Avoidance). These latest developments are to ‘sweep up’ those employees that were not picked up in 2006/07 and/or who have not taken up the EBT or other settlement opportunity.

The main on-going enquiries being dealt with by this office include:

 Edge Consulting/Norla
 Talent Resource Management
 Cherrylon Marketing
 Tract Management
 Sanzar Solutions
 AM Limited
 Darwinpay Partnership

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Hi Michael,

I assume that if HMRC do decide to litigate they will agree test/lead cases, possibly on a per-scheme basis, and ask everyone else if they agree to be bound by the outcome?

Since you now appear to be acting for a number of different scheme users, do you mind me asking what your litigation strategy is? Do you intend to represent the litigants at a tribunal yourself, or appoint a tax counsel (barrister/QC)? If the latter, how is this going to be paid for because tax barristers don't come cheap? I'm sure you are aware that HMRC won't spare any expense when it comes to hiring the best legal representation.

It is very unfortunate that it has come to this. People paid exorbitant fees to use these schemes, which should have covered the cost of any litigation, and now they are going to have to pay twice.

Regards
DR

[Michael J Perry FCA]

Litigation

Hi Michael,

I assume that if HMRC do decide to litigate they will agree test/lead cases, possibly on a per-scheme basis, and ask everyone else if they agree to be bound by the outcome?

Since you now appear to be acting for a number of different scheme users, do you mind me asking what your litigation strategy is? Do you intend to represent the litigants at a tribunal yourself, or appoint a tax counsel (barrister/QC)? If the latter, how is this going to be paid for because tax barristers don't come cheap? I'm sure you are aware that HMRC won't spare any expense when it comes to hiring the best legal representation.

It is very unfortunate that it has come to this. People paid exorbitant fees to use these schemes, which should have covered the cost of any litigation, and now they are going to have to pay twice.

Regards
DR

Firstly, some of these cases have been on-going for several years already.

Secondly, I do not think HMRC will be too interested in whether the taxpayer agrees with the final outcome!

I believe we are some way off from litigation although certain cases might appear before a First Tier Tribunal later this year. They are like to be referred to the Upper Tribunal on a point of law. I only represent taxpayers at First Tier Tribunals in the most straight forward of cases.

At this level, it is likely that tax counsel would be instructed on a suitable test case and a 'fighting fund' set-up to cover the costs.

Anyone really interested would do well to read the HMRC Litigation & Settlement Strategy document.

It is most important at this time for each individual to protect themselves and not to make any major mistakes in the handling of their case such as missing an appeal deadline as you have pointed out many times and thank you for that!

One final word, HMRC will be monitoring this conversation and I think that strategy is best discussed on a one to one basis and therefore, despite the expense, appointing a Specialist is really the only option and now rather than later.

[cojak]

Let's just pull that bit out for all who might skim this thread:

One final word, HMRC will be monitoring this conversation and I think that strategy is best discussed on a one to one basis and therfore, despite the expense, appointing a Specialist is really the only option and now rather than later.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

At this level, it is likely that tax counsel would be instructed on a suitable test case and a 'fighting fund' set-up to cover the costs.

Which is a good argument for people using the same advisor to pool costs.

One final word, HMRC will be monitoring this conversation and I think that strategy is best discussed on a one to one basis and therefore, despite the expense, appointing a Specialist is really the only option and now rather than later.

It was more the funding aspect I was curious about, which you've answered.

I agree totally. Don't discuss anything here that you don't want HMRC to read. (We know for a fact they read the BN66 thread because they quoted some posts in the judicial review at the High Court!!!)