HMRC enquiries for EBT schemes through SANZAR

[jbryce]

I agree that's certainly how it sounds, however remember it still needs to get through parliament etc. I will certainly get some advice on this though, so apologies if I'm wrong.

On a separate note, people in receipt of 09-10 and 10-11 Discovery Assessments.............are anybody's figures actually correct ?

...is there an idiots way of working it out?

[MrO666]

...is there an idiots way of working it out?

Just look at your P11D for that year......do the sums that HMRC say you had in loans tie up (as they should do) ?

[varunksingh]

We have been discussing it here: http://forums.contractoruk.com/hmrc-...e-schemes.html.

If HMRC gets this approved they will send notice to anyone who's self assessment has a DOTAS number - even without a follower case. Whether under DOTAS or "substantially" similar case, tax payer will have NO RIGHT TO APPEAL and will have to pay in 90 days. It is retrospective and against natural justice.

To start with respond to
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload..._avoidance.pdf

It is important you get involved and put across your views. Then once HMRC publishes the final text in Mar/Apr, I guess it will time to write to MPs and Lords and lobby against it in any way you can. HMRC knows quite a few schemes were properly implemented and are 100% legal or in some case HMRC is out of time and thus are trying to find a way to get more tax collected which legally they might not be allowed to do.

[malvolio]

snip... It is retrospective and against natural justice.

No, get your facts straight; it's neither. They are starting with an entirely reasonable assumption that you have paid the wrong amount of tax against your stated gross income.

[varunksingh]

No, get your facts straight; it's neither. They are starting with an entirely reasonable assumption that you have paid the wrong amount of tax against your stated gross income.

How is it not retrospective? Does DOTAS legislation today says that if you declare DOTAS SRN on a tax return, disputed tax will have to be paid upfront? Assume what they wish and apply to future cases - from after the date the ASSUMPTION was made.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Is the DOTAS proposal retrospective?

Example

Person used a scheme in 2004/5 that was registered under DOTAS. Person put the SRN on their tax return. HMRC opened an enquiry, which is still open in 2014. No cases, involving the scheme, have been taken to tribunal.

Under the DOTAS proposal, HMRC would now be able demand payment of the tax they deem has been underpaid, even though the matter has never been tested in court.

[Dylan]

No, get your facts straight; it's neither. They are starting with an entirely reasonable assumption that you have paid the wrong amount of tax against your stated gross income.

Ah yes, assumption, a fine basis for law.

[jbryce]

Ouch

No, get your facts straight; it's neither. They are starting with an entirely reasonable assumption that you have paid the wrong amount of tax against your stated gross income.

...and they have existing legislation which allows them to issue an assessment and a demand for payment. A user can request a 'postponement' application which HMRC can reject requiring the application be managed by the a tribunal. This appears to be a fair process where HMRC can assume all they want, but in the end the dispute is handled impartially.

As far as I can see, accelerated payments apply for users of tax schemes that have been defeated at tribunal - these users would have to make an upfront payment.
That doesn't appear entirely unreasonable, it saves the Tax payer money and reduces the number of individual cases being dragged though FTTs etc. However, in the proposals there doesn't appear to be an independent means of appealing the payment notice - this is solely handle by HMRC, not an independent body. The fact that the HMRC get to decide if their view is 'reasonable' is not balanced or impartial and really, well, unjust.

I'm going to be stung massively by all this, either in Lawyers fees or Tax payments. That is my bad luck, however I wish to be treated impartially and fairly - so far I have been.

Loads of stuff on this http://forums.contractoruk.com/hmrc-...chemes-16.html

[varunksingh]

I also agree 100% that a representative case for a scheme and if lost no one else in that scheme should be allowed to hold on to disputed tax. Just look at Boyle, Aberdeen Asset Management and Rangers cases - all are completely different to each other. My issue is HMRC getting to decide which case to apply to which schemes. HMRC are tax collectors but with this legislation will have judicial powers as well. Many other things wrong with this legislation including retrospective nature.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I also agree 100% that a representative case for a scheme and if lost no one else in that scheme should be allowed to hold on to disputed tax. Just look at Boyle, Aberdeen Asset Management and Rangers cases - all are completely different to each other. My issue is HMRC getting to decide which case to apply to which schemes. HMRC are tax collectors but with this legislation will have judicial powers as well. Many other things wrong with this legislation including retrospective nature.

But HMRC never ever abuse their powers.