HMRC enquiries for EBT schemes through SANZAR

[MrO666]

Got this from another thread... Apparently the guy who has posted it says -- '' we are royally shafted"

http://www.publications.parliament.u...0190/14190.pdf

Might as well be written in chinese !

Seriously though, can you imagine what an unbelievably mind-numbing job somebody must have to sit and write that. I doubt they're the sort of person you'd want to chat to in the pub, I can't imagine they'd have much to say

[gamechanger]

Might as well be written in chinese !

Seriously though, can you imagine what an unbelievably mind-numbing job somebody must have to sit and write that. I doubt they're the sort of person you'd want to chat to in the pub, I can't imagine they'd have much to say

:-)

sections 192-222

"(12) Where an accelerated payment notice is withdrawn, it is to be treated as never
having had effect (and any accelerated payment made in accordance with, or
penalties paid by virtue of, the notice are to be repaid)."

[MrO666]

:-)

sections 192-222

"(12) Where an accelerated payment notice is withdrawn, it is to be treated as never
having had effect (and any accelerated payment made in accordance with, or
penalties paid by virtue of, the notice are to be repaid)."

So in a nutshell, it basically says that HMRC want the absolute power to issue anybody they like assessments for any figure they choose, without the need to justify it to anybody.

I'd be fecking stunned if that sails over all legal hurdles unchallenged. Remember we only look at this from a contractor point of view, remember that big businesses out there are also on the receiving end of this.

I'm quite surprised that they feel this is would be a perfectly legal thing to do. It's a polar opposite to the cornerstone of legal basis in this country, innocent until proven guilty. So this is the same as me telling the police I saw a man talking to some children in the park, and then the police putting him in prison without trial and without evidence, and telling him that when and if he can prove he didn't do anything wrong, then they'll let him out, but until then he stays there.

I think our government has been taking legal lessons from China and North Korea.

Sooner we can get those clowns out of government the better, they really are group of utterly clueless people with no idea how the real world works, and utter contempt for the voting electorate really.

[costo]

I think our government has been taking legal lessons from China and North Korea.

BBC News - North Korea: Students required to get Kim Jong-un haircut

Maybe thats next?

[LandRover]

I'd be fecking stunned if that sails over all legal hurdles unchallenged. Remember we only look at this from a contractor point of view, remember that big businesses out there are also on the receiving end of this.

I'm quite surprised that they feel this is would be a perfectly legal thing to do.

Well its well know that Mr & Mrs Gaulke appear to understand the tax avoidance legislation very well, they both worked in the profession.

David Gauke’s Wife is Tax Avoidance Lawyer - Guy Fawkes' blog

And David from1999 to 2005, he was a solicitor in the financial services group at Macfarlanes... Macfarlanes, international law firm / Macfarlanes

[lumineer]

07/08 Demand

I today received a dreaded assessment for 07/08 :-( I was also one of the ones who listened to sanzar when they told me not to do a SA!.

Just wanted it let others know they are now working backwards (where they can)

I've not had the letter for 07/08 yet (I live overseas) but I have logged on to my account and see an upcoming amount due for 07/08. I thought they had to have the assessment opened within 4 years to be able to pursue it?? I have seen a comment elsewhere which says " It is really important to draw a distinction between the 07/08 scheme and other years. The reason for the distinction is the 07/08 scheme was based upon the Dual Taxation Treaty (DTT) which was subsequently "clarified" by further legislation within the Finance Act 2008 (BN66) and was then applied retrospectively - meaning additional tax falls due. DTT/BN66 was challenged but it failed and effectively means that the HMRC have the weight of law behind them (this controversial change sparked several years of litigation and court rulings, most visibly led by contractor Robert Huitson). This is a good example of HMRC "moving the goalposts" - i.e. you used a scheme that was within the legislation at that time, however because of actions taken by HMRC after that time, they have reframed the legislation to make the scheme you used taxable"

Any one else seen this or have any further advice relating to tax year 07/08?

[MrO666]

I've not had the letter for 07/08 yet (I live overseas) but I have logged on to my account and see an upcoming amount due for 07/08. I thought they had to have the assessment opened within 4 years to be able to pursue it?? I have seen a comment elsewhere which says " It is really important to draw a distinction between the 07/08 scheme and other years. The reason for the distinction is the 07/08 scheme was based upon the Dual Taxation Treaty (DTT) which was subsequently "clarified" by further legislation within the Finance Act 2008 (BN66) and was then applied retrospectively - meaning additional tax falls due. DTT/BN66 was challenged but it failed and effectively means that the HMRC have the weight of law behind them (this controversial change sparked several years of litigation and court rulings, most visibly led by contractor Robert Huitson). This is a good example of HMRC "moving the goalposts" - i.e. you used a scheme that was within the legislation at that time, however because of actions taken by HMRC after that time, they have reframed the legislation to make the scheme you used taxable"

Any one else seen this or have any further advice relating to tax year 07/08?

It really depends on what was on your self-assessment. If it included a DOTAS number for the 07-08 year, then legally HMRC are time barred after 4 years, so you could quite happily tell them to go f@@k themselves. However, if you didn't mention a bean about anything on your return (no DOTAS, no white space declaration etc), then as I understand it they have 6 years, as they could claim that you had been 'careless', in which case they would not be time barred. Really depends on what your SA return said, but if you had made declaration, then in no uncertain terms I would gently 'remind' HMRC of their legal powers of discovery and the timescales thereof.

HMRC are quite clearly now operating outside the law in many areas of tax collection. They appear to think it's OK to do this and HOPE that the taxpayer caves in before it gets to court....they don't seem to give a toss whether what they're doing is actually legal or not, you've only got to look at the amount of what are quite clearly invalid DA's out there to see that.

[eek]

It really depends on what was on your self-assessment. If it included a DOTAS number for the 07-08 year, then legally HMRC are time barred after 4 years, so you could quite happily tell them to go f@@k themselves. However, if you didn't mention a bean about anything on your return (no DOTAS, no white space declaration etc), then as I understand it they have 6 years, as they could claim that you had been 'careless', in which case they would not be time barred. Really depends on what your SA return said, but if you had made declaration, then in no uncertain terms I would gently 'remind' HMRC of their legal powers of discovery and the timescales thereof.

HMRC are quite clearly now operating outside the law in many areas of tax collection. They appear to think it's OK to do this and HOPE that the taxpayer runs out of cash and credit before it gets to court....they don't seem to give a toss whether what you're doing is actually legal or not, you've only got to look at the amount of what are quite clearly invalid DA's out there to see that.

ftfy

[lumineer]

It really depends on what was on your self-assessment. If it included a DOTAS number for the 07-08 year, then legally HMRC are time barred after 4 years, so you could quite happily tell them to go f@@k themselves. However, if you didn't mention a bean about anything on your return (no DOTAS, no white space declaration etc), then as I understand it they have 6 years, as they could claim that you had been 'careless', in which case they would not be time barred. Really depends on what your SA return said, but if you had made declaration, then in no uncertain terms I would gently 'remind' HMRC of their legal powers of discovery and the timescales thereof.

HMRC are quite clearly now operating outside the law in many areas of tax collection. They appear to think it's OK to do this and HOPE that the taxpayer caves in before it gets to court....they don't seem to give a toss whether what they're doing is actually legal or not, you've only got to look at the amount of what are quite clearly invalid DA's out there to see that.

There was no DOTAS number as Sanzar were stating in 07-08 that their scheme was not a Tax Avoidance Scheme. However there was text in the white space of the return which stated the following:

"During the year I received income from a non-UK resident trust which I have declared on page F6 of SA106. I also wish to claim relief under S788(3)(a) of ICTA 1988 so that such income is not taxed in the UK under the terms of the Double Taxation Treaty then in place between the UK and the Isle of Man."

So everything was declared on the return, including the amount on page F6. I understand that this was purported to be a different scheme from the 08-09 scheme, but the DA seems somewhat questionable after 5-6 years

[DonkeyRhubarb]

There was no DOTAS number as Sanzar were stating in 07-08 that their scheme was not a Tax Avoidance Scheme. However there was text in the white space of the return which stated the following:

"During the year I received income from a non-UK resident trust which I have declared on page F6 of SA106. I also wish to claim relief under S788(3)(a) of ICTA 1988 so that such income is not taxed in the UK under the terms of the Double Taxation Treaty then in place between the UK and the Isle of Man."

So everything was declared on the return, including the amount on page F6. I understand that this was purported to be a different scheme from the 08-09 scheme, but the DA seems somewhat questionable after 5-6 years

This is the DTA scheme affected by BN66. Nothing to do with EBTs or loans.

Sanzar may be right about it not needing to be DOTAS registered but not for the reason they've given.

When DOTAS came in, in 2004, it contained a "grandfathering" provision which meant schemes already in prior existence did not need to be notified. Since the DTA scheme had been in use since 2001, it should have been covered by this exclusion.

I know of other people in the DTA scheme, with different promoters, who have received DAs. HMRC are claiming that what was on the tax return didn't constitute sufficient disclosure, hence why they were entitled to use Discovery.

This is an argument that can only be decided by a tribunal.