HMRC Enquiry letters on Loans from EBT and other schemes

[Not Losing Any Sleep]

Thanks all, I will investigate a specialist tax QC at least for an initial chat

If 300k is the ballpark figure for FTT representation I'm not sure that's viable...too late for insurance now
I will see if I can locate a group, hopefully there are some scheme members out there
Will also find out my potential liability and see where it stands

Scheme was an EBT

The team with the best track record by far is Andrew Thornhill and Paul Baxendale Walker.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

What next for HMRC following their loss in the Glasgow Rangers case?

Well worth a read.

http://www.taxation.co.uk/taxation/A...-it-s-all-over

[cojak]

HMRC Enquiry letters on Loans from EBT and other schemes

The team with the best track record by far is Andrew Thornhill and Paul Baxendale Walker.

You're a real cheerleader for those guys aren't you?

Almost to the point of advertising.,,

[jbryce]

killing avoidance schemes

The team with the best track record by far is Andrew Thornhill and Paul Baxendale Walker.

...yes - but they aren't defending EBTs (generally) they're defending something at a bit more targeted at the more affluent end of the spectrum.

Look - APNs and FNS are basically targeted at killing avoidance schemes for Contractors. Why? Because we're an easy target.

However, HMRC have a risk forced upon them. If too many people stick two fingers up and ignore the settlement offer, then HMRC will grind to a halt and will need to go to a great expense to clear an enormous backlog.

[Not Losing Any Sleep]

You're a real cheerleader for those guys aren't you?

Almost to the point of advertising.,,

I have an open mind, but who else has their track record?

[Rob79]

In terms of mentioning "teams" of those who successfully defend EBT's/EFURBS (or otherwise), it will be worth looking out for the first targets for the "High Risk Promoter" regime that arrived alongside FN/APN.

The reported public face of these rules is to change the behavior of those promoters who persist in designing and selling "mass marketed" tax avoidance schemes.

Unfortunately phrases like "mass marketed" and "tax avoidance scheme" are entirely subjective ones at the whim of HMRC.

Rumour is that the rules were aimed at particular promoters and it is not surprising to see some of those involved in EBT's with their name in lights.

If the first list of such promoters appears in the next few weeks and pre any appeal hearings would that influence a judge? Would such a tactic be underhand?

No news yet on when the first names will appear. I suggest to all contemplating going to a QC/barrister and where the help of a promoter or designer of products is required to untangle things, might want to keep an eye on things however as I suspect we will see something in time for the opening of the next Court term in September.

[convict]

The thing that pisses me off is that FTT hearings are not made public so I've no way of knowing if my scheme will be tested until it is too late. Despite this I'm effectively bound by the judgement, however crap the defence

[Rob79]

The thing that pisses me off is that FTT hearings are not made public so I've no way of knowing if my scheme will be tested until it is too late. Despite this I'm effectively bound by the judgement, however crap the defence

They are open to the public unless a judge has held that they should be "in camera".

You can go onto the Tribunals website and see a list of hearings. You can turn up without an invite and sit in to listen. Obviously you're not allowed to take part and barracking judge, barristers, witnesses, HMRC officials will see you removed, no matter how apposite your comments.

Decisions are always public material.

There are however some FTT decisions that have not been made public. It has been held recently that if a decision is not available but HMRC rely upon it to prove or assert their point, then this is unfair and HMRC will likely be struck down. Consequently we are seeing a number of historic decisions being published in the middle of holiday season.

[convict]

Yes, I was thinking more about the fact that the lists are only published once a date has been set. If you are not a party to the case then you'll not be made aware and have no way of inputting into the representation despite being bound by the judgement due to follower notices

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Yes, I was thinking more about the fact that the lists are only published once a date has been set. If you are not a party to the case then you'll not be made aware and have no way of inputting into the representation despite being bound by the judgement due to follower notices

You also have no say on whether the taxpayer appeals. Eg. Boyle is a final judgment, which is a prerequisite for issuing FNs, because he didn't appeal.