HMRC enquiries for EBT schemes through SANZAR

[MrO666]

Yes-in full detail.

A silly question perhaps, but I assume you were a sanzar user, and if so which year(s) assessment does this latest letter from HMRC refer to ?

Also, I'm assuming you had previously successfully appealed any assessment, and that this is now a further demand (for want of a better term) from HMRC for the same thing ?

[Shrek77]

Yes - I am a previous sanzar employee . This letter relates to my appeal for 09/10 discovery notice.
I have used my accountant for both my appeals, 08/09 last February & this appeal lodged in Dec.

This recent letter gives an outline of the Boyle case & goes on to say that they feel the decision in this case provides support on their view of these loans being a taxable income .

[MrO666]

Yes - I am a previous sanzar employee . This letter relates to my appeal for 09/10 discovery notice.
I have used my accountant for both my appeals, 08/09 last February & this appeal lodged in Dec.

This recent letter gives an outline of the Boyle case & goes on to say that they feel the decision in this case provides support on their view of these loans being a taxable income .

I assume you're going to tell them where to go ?

I'd ask for legal clarification of EXACTLY how they can claim that the Sanzar case and Boyle are the same, when the Sanzar case has not been tested in court, and therefor the full facts surrounding it's operation have not been scrutinised by legal professionals.

I'd also point out that HMRC's 'point of view' is in fact irrelevant when it comes to law.

I don't understand why everybody hasn't been in receipt of these letters, unless of course they are now targeting people who didn't appeal through CM, as they feel they may be easier targets ?

I suspect it's nothing more than more scare tactics. If anybody else behaved in the way that HMRC have been over the last few years, there would be a legal case for harassment i'm sure of it. I'm sick of HMRC thinking they can demand money without any proof other than their opinion.

Opinions anybody ?

[ASB]

I assume you're going to tell them where to go ?

I'd ask for legal clarification of EXACTLY how they can claim that the Sanzar case and Boyle are the same, when the Sanzar case has not been tested in court, and therefor the full facts surrounding it's operation have not been scrutinised by legal professionals.

I'd also point out that HMRC's 'point of view' is in fact irrelevant when it comes to law.

I don't understand why everybody hasn't been in receipt of these letters, unless of course they are now targeting people who didn't appeal through CM, as they feel they may be easier targets ?

I suspect it's nothing more than more scare tactics. If anybody else behaved in the way that HMRC have been over the last few years, there would be a legal case for harassment i'm sure of it. I'm sick of HMRC thinking they can demand money without any proof other than their opinion.

Opinions anybody ?

You might be sick of it, but its the system. Hmrc are pretty sure of their case, doesnt mean they are right though.

If you want to progress it you can, I am sure, request determination. Then you actually have something you can fight.

hmrc of course are not immune from harassment action. What constitutes harassment is of course legally defined so if you actually believe they are anywhere near crossing that line you can bring action.

[MrO666]

You might be sick of it, but its the system. Hmrc are pretty sure of their case, doesnt mean they are right though.

If you want to progress it you can, I am sure, request determination. Then you actually have something you can fight.

hmrc of course are not immune from harassment action. What constitutes harassment is of course legally defined so if you actually believe they are anywhere near crossing that line you can bring action.

I know of somebody who has engaged their accountant to formally request a determination. The accountant has asked HMRC to confirm exactly how they have arrived at the figures owed, and that providing HMRC are confident that the figures are based on fact, then to issue a determination thereafter.

He tells me that so far HMRC appear less than keen to do the above. The accountants view is that HMRC have no idea what the actual figures are, so for them to issue a determination based on no facts would leave them in a potentially difficult position, IE demanding a figure from somebody that in court they have absolutely no way of backing up.

Myself, i'm resigned to the fact that HMRC will probably win this argument in the end, and personally, i'm not sure I can be bothered spending the next 5 years of my life arguing the toss, especially when it's now clear that HMRC will just get the law changed to suit.

[ASB]

I know of somebody who has engaged their accountant to formally request a determination. The accountant has asked HMRC to confirm exactly how they have arrived at the figures owed, and that providing HMRC are confident that the figures are based on fact, then to issue a determination thereafter.

He tells me that so far HMRC appear less than keen to do the above. The accountants view is that HMRC have no idea what the actual figures are, so for them to issue a determination based on no facts would leave them in a potentially difficult position, IE demanding a figure from somebody that in court they have absolutely no way of backing up.

Myself, i'm resigned to the fact that HMRC will probably win this argument in the end, and personally, i'm not sure I can be bothered spending the next 5 years of my life arguing the toss, especially when it's now clear that HMRC will just get the law changed to suit.

In one case the judge said "well you could have got a determination to put it beyond doubt". Whether somebody doing this is a good thing or not I am not entirely sure, however the fact that you know somebody who is taking this route at least means they should be able to get thier facts judged on the current status quo. In effect it may provide some protection from HMRC moving the goalposts.

Generally I think it is HMRC interests to procastinate.

[MrO666]

In one case the judge said "well you could have got a determination to put it beyond doubt". Whether somebody doing this is a good thing or not I am not entirely sure, however the fact that you know somebody who is taking this route at least means they should be able to get thier facts judged on the current status quo. In effect it may provide some protection from HMRC moving the goalposts.

Generally I think it is HMRC interests to procastinate.

I agree entirely, however I think this is the kind of inept public sector behavior that should be tackled from on high. If HMRC were to treat people in an efficient, professional and timely manner, then although some people wouldn't like the outcome, I think in general this would be a welcome approach.

It's more the fact that HMRC seem to think it's entirely acceptable to ask for money and then not even have the common courtesy to deal with cases in a reasonable time frame.

I think it could quite reasonably be argued that in the UK the tax system is in effect not fit for purpose. It's unbelievably complex (where it need not be), and I truly believe that if the system were far more straightforward and transparent, then there would be far less opportunity for people to 'play it'. So surely it's in HMRC's own interests to overhaul this dinosaur ?

[flamel]

They will say they are undertaking an overhaul. I'm waiting for the announcement "we've had a very positive response to the consultation etc etc".
They erroneously think it will close the tax gap - all it will achieve is to wipe out lots of people and sound good in some of the newspapers.
A voluntary settlement procedure should be negotiated to save face all round, including an amnesty for years before 2010/11 when disguised remuneration legislation was introduced.

[MrO666]

They will say they are undertaking an overhaul. I'm waiting for the announcement "we've had a very positive response to the consultation etc etc".
They erroneously think it will close the tax gap - all it will achieve is to wipe out lots of people and sound good in some of the newspapers.
A voluntary settlement procedure should be negotiated to save face all round, including an amnesty for years before 2010/11 when disguised remuneration legislation was introduced.

HMRC will not agree to any settlement short of what is owed in my opinion. In the current austere times, HMRC cannot be seen to publicly agree to settlements at less than what they 'believe' is genuinely owed......the press would hang them and accuse them of letting "tax avoiders" off....

I agree though that very soon you'll here that HMRC have had a very positive response.......

Time to start saving I think. I will have this put to bed by the end of this year one way or another, I refuse to go on for years with this looming over my shoulder.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

HMRC will not agree to any settlement short of what is owed in my opinion. In the current austere times, HMRC cannot be seen to publicly agree to settlements at less than what they 'believe' is genuinely owed......the press would hang them and accuse them of letting "tax avoiders" off....

Many professionals have been calling for a general amnesty for legacy avoidance cases as a pragmatic solution to help clear the enormous backlog.

The trouble, as you say, is that any form of concession would be perceived as rewarding tax avoiders.

HMRC's only answer is to come up with more legislation which rigs the game in their favour.