HMRC Enquiry letters on Loans from EBT and other schemes

[convict]

Followers don't matter. They can issue APN based on dotas

[retrodeath]

I don't think it will do anyone who has an EBT enquiry on the go any harm. Each scheme is different but if the basis of EBT has been proven to be sound, this won't work in HMRC's favour in any tribunal.

If they were about to ship out thousands of APNs based on follower notices based on all EBTs being similar then they're surely just been scuppered.

Their definition of similarity will have backfired. They will have to treat each EBT as a separate case in the tribunals.

I know nothing so this is just me speculating.

[eek]

I don't think it will do anyone who has an EBT enquiry on the go any harm. Each scheme is different but if the basis of EBT has been proven to be sound, this won't work in HMRC's favour in any tribunal.

If they were about to ship out thousands of APNs based on follower notices based on all EBTs being similar then they're surely just been scuppered.

Their definition of similarity will have backfired. They will have to treat each EBT as a separate case in the tribunals.

I know nothing so this is just me speculating.

Well you are as APNs are different to Follower notices:-

APN - HMRC think you owe HMRC money and HMRC want it now while everyone argues over whether you owe HMRC that money or not.
Follower schemes - we think that scheme is identical to the one that just lost so pay up.

The rangers verdict has an impact on a number of schemes where follower notices may have been issued, it won't have any impact on APNs.

[retrodeath]

So I've had demands which I've appealed. Mostly for EBT schemes. I never entered a DOTAS number as directed by tax advisor. I don't even know if my schemes were registered - pretty sure they weren't. They think I owe them a fat wad. I would think they would be on thin ice issuing me with a follower notice until they are successful in court against someone also in my scheme. Before today, I had the impression they would just deem all EBTs the same and issue followers to all people in all schemes. They surely won't be able to do that now. They money I owe them is in dispute and I thought that's where the APN came in. While it's in dispute I have to give them it.


Which bit have I got wrong?

[LandRover]

Will HMRC ignore Rangers lost Appeal?

Surely they can not, because if they issue APN's and the disputed tax has to be paid back due to Case Law of EBT's being deemed perfectly lawful, then HMRC are going to look rather ridiculous and be slaughtered by the press/parliament committee/accountants/law society...

The Rangers case sets a precedent now the appeal has been lost by HMRC...today's news must put HMRC into a predicament. Does Gauke understand that he could be onto a hiding in the law courts?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Accelerated Payment

HMRC back peddling.

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...ml#post1963264

[convict]

So I've had demands which I've appealed. Mostly for EBT schemes. I never entered a DOTAS number as directed by tax advisor. I don't even know if my schemes were registered - pretty sure they weren't. They think I owe them a fat wad. I would think they would be on thin ice issuing me with a follower notice until they are successful in court against someone also in my scheme. Before today, I had the impression they would just deem all EBTs the same and issue followers to all people in all schemes. They surely won't be able to do that now. They money I owe them is in dispute and I thought that's where the APN came in. While it's in dispute I have to give them it.


Which bit have I got wrong?

The bit where it does not matter if you put a DOTAS number in or not. If the scheme is registered or they think it should be then they can stiff you with an APN.

http://www.publications.parliament.u...0035/15035.pdf
Section 219:
Condition C is that one or more of the following requirements are met—
(a) HMRC has given (or, at the same time as giving the accelerated
payment notice, gives) P a follower notice under Chapter 2—
(i) in relation to the same return or claim or, as the case may be,
appeal, and
(ii) by reason of the same tax advantage and the chosen
arrangements;
(b) the chosen arrangements are DOTAS arrangements;
(c) a GAAR counteraction notice has been given in relation to the asserted
advantage or part of it and the chosen arrangements (or is so given at
the same time as the accelerated payment notice) in a case where the
stated opinion of at least two of the members of the sub-panel of the
GAAR Advisory Panel which considered the matter under paragraph
10 of Schedule 43 to FA 2013 was as set out in paragraph 11(3)(b) of that
Schedule (entering into tax arrangements not reasonable course of
action etc).

(5) “DOTAS arrangements” means—
(a) notifiable arrangements to which HMRC has allocated a reference
number under section 311 of FA 2004,
(b) notifiable arrangements implementing a notifiable proposal where
HMRC has allocated a reference number under that section to the
proposed notifiable arrangements, or
(c) arrangements in respect of which the promoter must provide
prescribed information under section 312(2) of that Act by reason of the
arrangements being substantially the same as notifiable arrangements
within paragraph (a) or (b).

So section 219 (4)b and 5(a) if your scheme is registered or 5(c) if they think its substantially similar.

Oh and they get to decide even though they probably don't (fully) know the mechanics of the specific scheme

It's a nasty, nasty law

[varunksingh]

Reflection

So who was the resident tax expert 6 months ago arguing that EBTs almost illegal and don't keep high hopes from Rangers case because of AAM case? I guess reading Rangers decision in full will help.

Now bring on ToAA. Last remaining resort from HMRC. They can issue APNs but in courts HMRC will have a very tough time for properly implement EBTs. Many EBT were implemented much more properly then Rangers.

Aha ... first things first ... I hear Judicial Review

[LandRover]

Full appeal ruling

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-conte...d-v-others.pdf

Well done to Mr Thornhill and his team

[Not Losing Any Sleep]

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-conte...d-v-others.pdf

Well done to Mr Thornhill and his team

If you have time read through this excellent diary of the proceedings.

UTT Thread | The Scottish Football Monitor

Agreed, well done Thornhill with I presume advice from Baxendale-Walker. Also, read the decision which will trouble HMRC. I wonder how everyone who settled is feeling?

I think we need to take powers away from HMRC not give them more.