HMRC Enquiry letters on Loans from EBT and other schemes

[silverfox1967]

Sanzar ??

Anyone knowwhere they have gone? i need advice from them as have received the letter.

[cojak]

Read through this thread, they were mentioned a few days ago.

[seanb85]

Sanzar are no more apparently...

In terms of paying back the loans, where and how would you pay this back. I thought the loans are usually paid by Trusts? But was the suggestion to pay back to the company in question (provided they're still in existence, see Sanzar!) and then billing that company for services via a Ltd. But how would that even work considering we're talking about payments made 4 years ago?!

In any case, I agree with donkeyrhubarb. This is nothing more than HMRC posturing. We already have EBT case law that I'm almost 100% certain has created binding precedents in UK tax law.

[GoneSouth]

Sanzar are no more apparently...

In terms of paying back the loans, where and how would you pay this back. I thought the loans are usually paid by Trusts? But was the suggestion to pay back to the company in question (provided they're still in existence, see Sanzar!) and then billing that company for services via a Ltd. But how would that even work considering we're talking about payments made 4 years ago?!

Hi seanb85, I pm'd you about how I'm repaying the loan.

In any case, I agree with donkeyrhubarb. This is nothing more than HMRC posturing. We already have EBT case law that I'm almost 100% certain has created binding precedents in UK tax law.

At what point does it become malicious? Although there are appeals pending and obvious wiggle room, at some point if the losses continue stacking up for HMRC do they have to drop the pursuit of these cases? Will those folks who have agree to settle without appeal have recourse to claim the money back?

[cojak]

In any case, I agree with donkeyrhubarb. This is nothing more than HMRC posturing. We already have EBT case law that I'm almost 100% certain has created binding precedents in UK tax law.

You need to read the rest of what DR said as well. HMRC will continue with their demands irrespective of what you think. You can't rely on this, you will need a legal representative to defend you in court if necessary.

The alternative is to pay up/be made bankrupt.

[Hazed]

Sanzar

Hi seanb85, I pm'd you about how I'm repaying the loan.



At what point does it become malicious? Although there are appeals pending and obvious wiggle room, at some point if the losses continue stacking up for HMRC do they have to drop the pursuit of these cases? Will those folks who have agree to settle without appeal have recourse to claim the money back?

Hi GoneSouth Could you drop me a note about your Sanzar process.

Does anyone on here know how to contact Sanzar / or what my best course of action is on this issue as i also have the dreaded 08/09 letter referring to my period with Sanzar.

[LandRover]

Murray Group v HMRC

ANYONE WHO THINKS THEY SHOULD NOT APPEAL SHOULD READ ON...

The refusal by the majority of the FTT members to apply Ramsay to the facts and circumstances of this case is also worthy of note. It is a welcome reminder that the FTT is prepared to maintain intellectual integrity when construing complex statutory provisions in the context of an “aggressive” tax avoidance scheme. Readers will be aware that in the recent case of UBS AG and DB Group Servicing (UK) Ltd v HMRC3, the Upper Tribunal was similarly unmoved by HMRC’s arguments that the Ramsay doctrine could apply to a scheme described by the Upper Tribunal as a “carefully planned tax avoidance scheme which is designed to enable the appellants to provide substantial bonuses to employees … in a way that would escape liability to both income tax and National Insurance Contributions”. It is not sufficient for HMRC to simply invoke the Ramsay doctrine in every tax planning case in order to do down the taxpayer.

LOOK AT THE ACTUAL DECISION AND CASE LAW REFERENCES ON PAGE 3

The Finance & Tax Tribunal

[GoneSouth]

Hi GoneSouth Could you drop me a note about your Sanzar process.

Does anyone on here know how to contact Sanzar / or what my best course of action is on this issue as i also have the dreaded 08/09 letter referring to my period with Sanzar.

Hi Hazed I wasn't with Sanzar. Apologies - reading back my reply makes it look like I was.

Essentially I suggested that even if Sanzar are gone the trust must still exist.

GS

[Michael J Perry FCA]

Sanzar solutions

For those who may not know, Sanzar Solutions are now GARRAWAY CONSULTANTS and they are recommending professional advisers to deal with these cases who will of course charge a fee.

I am continuing to receive many calls from contractors and thank you for the (mostly) kind comments about the free advice which I am happy to offer.

As stated before, I also accept instructions from clients that want to use my firm's services!

[LandRover]

CRC v Charlton, Corfield and Corfield, Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

During 2006/07, the three taxpayers entered into an avoidance scheme involving life assurance, designed to create allowable losses to offset against capital gains.

The arrangements were reported to HMRC under the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes (DOTAS) regime. The department allocated a scheme reference number that the taxpayers included in their tax returns for the year.

As a result of the Court of Appeal’s decision against the taxpayer in Drummond v CRC [2009] STC 2206, which involved a similar scheme, the Revenue decided the scheme in the instant case was ineffective and raised discovery assessments.

The taxpayers appealed.

The First-tier Tribunal allowed the appeal on the basis the HMRC officer who dealt with the returns should have acted upon the scheme reference number. Although there had been a discovery within TMA 1970, s 29(1), the conditions in s 29(5) were not satisfied.

HMRC appealed.

The Upper Tribunal agreed with the First-tier Tribunal that a Revenue official would be aware of the significance of a scheme reference number, and that the promoter of a scheme would have had to provide information to the taxman.

The judge said, “It is not necessary that the hypothetical officer should understand precisely how a scheme works, or [how] any claimed tax treatment is said to arise.

“All that is needed is that, from the information made available to the hypothetical officer, he can reasonably be expected to be aware of the insufficiency of tax such as to justify an assessment.”.

HMRC’s appeal was dismissed.

http://www.tribunals.gov.uk/financea...d-corfield.pdf