Indeed. All this means in reality is a loss at FTT for that particular scheme (anybody know which one it is/was exactly?), with the option of appeal of FTT decision.
-
-
I "think" this maybe the Contracting Overseas scheme that has a subsection in our sub-forum. One of the posters mentioned that his FTT case was being heard in May and decisions for May have just started coming through, so the timing fits..Originally posted by PeterF View Post
Whilst I agree, each particular scheme is structured differently, there are some interesting precedents in the judgement that we should take note of. In my view it reveals a little bit more of HMRCs thinking and also the kind of legal points an EBT loan needs to satisfy..
It'll be interesting to see what flows off the back of this once better legal minds than mine have disseminated..Comment
-
Apologies for not posting the full version beforehand as I wasn't sure if I was able to. Don't ask me how/where I got it.
This is the "May case" that people have been referring to and is the Sandfield Scheme discussed here. I vaguely remember someone mentioning this before and how the fx transfers were "outlawed". This is going back at least 6 years so it's quite a while ago.
http://www.financeandtaxtribunals.go...w.aspx?id=7506
The Judge backed HMRC on all counts.
My initial take and opinion on this is:
- The scheme failed on implementation - connected parties, no arms length/distance etc.
- Worked on devaluing currency loans, specific to this scheme
- Lack of decent arguments against TAA and loans from the appellant
- Appellant's representation was not strong/robust
So some parts are scheme specific, other parts are more general in nature (esp. the TAA/discovery/loans bit). This does however show HMRCs argument regarding the generic nature of such schemes and how they intend to attack them.
HMRC will churn out some propaganda hailing a win against a loan schemes in general. It's a long document and certainly warrants a fuller analysis than what I've given here.
I'm just another contractor, bear that in mind when reading my opinion.Comment
-
[QUOTE=convict;1851274]Apologies for not posting the full version beforehand as I wasn't sure if I was able to. Don't ask me how/where I got it.
This is the "May case" that people have been referring to and is the Sandfield Scheme discussed here. I vaguely remember someone mentioning this before and how the fx transfers were "outlawed". This is going back at least 6 years so it's quite a while ago.
The Judge backed HMRC on all counts.
My initial take and opinion on this is:
- The scheme failed on implementation - connected parties, no arms length/distance etc.
- Worked on devaluing currency loans, specific to this scheme
- Lack of decent arguments against TAA and loans from the appellant
- Appellant's representation was not strong/robust
So some parts are scheme specific, other parts are more general in nature (esp. the TAA/discovery/loans bit). This does however show HMRCs argument regarding the generic nature of such schemes and how they intend to attack them.
HMRC will churn out some propaganda hailing a win against a loan schemes in general. It's a long document and certainly warrants a fuller analysis than what I've given here.
Quick question - as this was for 2001/2 and before the use of a Tax Avoidance scheme number (I think this was 2004?) was it significant that the HRMC discovery for 2001/2 was in 2008? (6 years - loss of tax brought about carelessly - SALF411 - Enquiries into Tax Returns: time limits for discovery assessments ) or could they have gone back 20 years?
I saw that this was void as there was an open enquiry anyway.Last edited by dezze; 21 December 2013, 10:31.Comment
-
group appeals
I've added some links into the background info sticky regarding group appeal info, rule 18, and an industry piece discussing the matter. The titles are:
Groups of Related Cases
Piece on Rule 18/Lead Cases
I've also added a couple of bits on legislation which also covers these subjects.
First Tier Tax Tribunal SI 2009/273
Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal)Comment
-
Sandfield (also known as Consulting Overseas)
There was a thread started nearly 6 years ago for this
http://forums.contractoruk.com/hmrc-...victim-15.html
The scheme dates back to 2001/2, so it's taken a little while to get to court.
I expect HMRC will deal with the current EBT/loan schemes a bit more quickly but nevertheless people need to be prepared for this to drag on for years.Comment
-
PM rights
I am new to this forum and have recieved the letter from HMRC regarding my edge account.
Admin - can i have PM rights please
I am willing to join any group to help fight this
<admin note>PM rights granted</admin note>Comment
-
Independent front page
Front page of the Independent today accuses HMRC of chasing individuals and small businesses and letting big business get away with tax avoiance
Take from the poor, but not the rich: Tax authorities accused of 'siding' with big business over small firms and individuals - UK Politics - UK - The IndependentComment
-
Edge EBT - Big tax bill landed at my door
This is my first post in this forum.
I have used Norla/Edge EBT for 3 years. I had received my first hmrc letter for £36,000 in Feb 2013 for the financial year 2008/2009. I have successfully appealed this, with the help of Michelle Booth and hmrc accepted the appeal and the tax was kept on hold with 5% increase letters following. In December 2013 I have received another Tax demand letter for some astronomical figure. I have appealed to this as well in the same way as the first one. I haven't heard any thing back yet and fingers crossed.
Any Edge EBT scheme users out there?Comment
Comment