HMRC Enquiry letters on Loans from EBT and other schemes

[eek]

The desired outcome for HMRC is issue APNs, get cheques back in the post. Job done.

That's probably worked quite well up to now, apart from some footballers, because they've only targeted wealthy investors in film schemes.

The process might break down when they issue APNs to tens of thousands of contractors.

What nobody, including HMRC, knows is what % of contractors won't be able to pay.

Not quite true, as soon as soon as HMRC start hitting contractors I think the fact is that most won't be able to pay. The question is, does most mean 51% or 90%?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

The desired outcome for HMRC is issue APNs, get cheques back in the post. Job done.

That's probably worked quite well up to now, apart from some footballers, because they've only targeted wealthy investors in film schemes.

The process might break down when they issue APNs to tens of thousands of contractors.

What nobody, including HMRC, knows is what % of contractors won't be able to pay.

[webberg]

I am waiting for the time when HMRC lose in courts but by then some have been made bankrupt and families destroyed. Someone will have to held responsible at that time.

You think?

HMRC is a vast faceless beast. When it makes errors it hides behind "taxpayer confidentiality". When the Ombudsman rules against it, they say "it's only a very small proportion of our "customers".

I'd agree with the other posters here. Nobody will suffer except the poor guy/girl who is now owing HMRC a lot of money.

[eek]

I am waiting for the time when HMRC lose in courts but by then some have been made bankrupt and families destroyed. Someone will have to held responsible at that time.

Hardly. It depends who petitions for bankruptcy (the tax payer or hmrc). I reckon hmrc will refuse to do it but instead hint that there is a solution if the tax payer goes bankrupt of their own accord.

Remember these are people who purposefully send letters timed to cause maximum stress so I reckon they will just ramp up the pressure until the tax payer gives up and petitions for his own bankruptcy... Then if it goes to court they can legimately claim it was the tax payers decision, nowt to do with us guv....

[Boobetty]

I am waiting for the time when HMRC lose in courts but by then some have been made bankrupt and families destroyed. Someone will have to held responsible at that time.

But will this make the headlines, and even if it does will it be enough to sway the popular opinion that tax avoiders are 'morally repugnant'.

If you think someone politically significant is going to pipe up and say bankrupting tax avoiders isn't 'fair', I really wouldn't hold your breath.

[StrengthInNumbers]

I am waiting for the time when HMRC lose in courts but by then some have been made bankrupt and families destroyed. Someone will have to held responsible at that time.

[webberg]

Football pundits face £4.5m tax avoidance bill - Citywire

(A similar article is also on the front page of The Times today (Thursday 29th January)).

Whilst I'm sorry for the pundits (and also for the footballers, in the news a few days ago for the same reason), I believe that this can only be good for us and bad for HMRC - if a few well-known and well-liked 'personalities' are persecuted, questions will continue to be asked as to why ...

This type of article is almost exactly what HMRC want. They want "normal" taxpayers to think that if HMRC are not afraid to take on "celebrities" with their resources and reputation, then they won't hesitate to take on the vast majority of taxpayers who never trouble the headline writers.

HMRC has a history of doing this. Look at the Working Wheels case. Three taxpayers in the dock. Two of them you could argue were legitimate in that they were financially sophisticated and should have known better. One was a radio DJ who was in the nation's ear most mornings and relied on others to advise him. Why was he selected? Because it guaranteed publicity.

Most taxpayers, whether they admit it or not, will be pleased that those they perceive as undeserved high earners (several million for kicking a ball around) are being forced to pay their fair share. HMRC and HMT have been hugely successful in punting the "fair" message, even though nobody actually knows what that means. This will not be seen as "persecution" but "justice".

This is not the time to be in denial and assume that HMRC policy will change anytime soon. It won't. No politician is going to come out and say that people who have not paid their "fair" share of tax should be let off because he/she would immediately lose a huge chunk of votes. Given that it's the politicians who make the policy that HMRC follow there is absolutely no chance of a change in direction.

[dangerouswhensober]

Football pundits face £4.5m tax avoidance bill

Football pundits face £4.5m tax avoidance bill - Citywire

(A similar article is also on the front page of The Times today (Thursday 29th January)).

Whilst I'm sorry for the pundits (and also for the footballers, in the news a few days ago for the same reason), I believe that this can only be good for us and bad for HMRC - if a few well-known and well-liked 'personalities' are persecuted, questions will continue to be asked as to why ...

[eek]

Will be interesting to see what happens if HMRC lose and some have been made bankrupt in that process.

I think it will depend on who petitioned for bankruptcy (HMRC or the taxpayer)...

[StrengthInNumbers]

Will be interesting to see what happens if HMRC lose and some have been made bankrupt in that process.