HMRC enquiries for EBT schemes through SANZAR

[MrO666]

definitely not wrong in my favour! - what I meant to say is first to call them and discuss how they got to the number and give a slap to the person that botched it up...probably will not happen so will try and see if they can revisit the numbers and come a an accurate one...

The fact is I doubt they even know how they came to it....so my concern is not to shoot myself on the foot and ask for a re-check and they come back with a larger amount!!

Well worst case scenario, providing you can prove what the figures should be then that's the end of it. I don't think they'll argue with you if you were actually telling them what the true figure is, and then offering to pay the tax, I think they'd be quite eager to take your money.

[flamel]

Very keen to take your money - it won't stop them coming back for more though

[MrO666]

Very keen to take your money - it won't stop them coming back for more though

Yes it will.

When / if you reach an agreement with them then it's signed on both sides as a full and final settlement. Based on that, the ONLY way HMRC could then come back for more would be if they discovered that you'd not been truthful with them about something, or they were suddenly in receipt of information which made it clear that what you had told them wasn't the case, they couldn't just ask for more money because they felt like it, that's the point of the legally binding full and final.

[jbryce]

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.

The thing is, this is the way HMRC want you to think. In essence they are inefficient bullies; they will target a single user with the Boyle case (not representative of the Sanzar solution) but will shy away from those users being represented by C&M. They should be told to stick it until the Law has decided on the effectiveness of the Sanzar approach - that is the law at present. I wonder why they aren't chasing Sanzar or Edge or the others? could it be that they know that it won't be a slam dunk like the Boyle case?

If the government put out a proposal document on bringing back the death penalty they would probably get a 'positive response' - it doesn't make it right. Some of the proposals in the document may well fall foul of Human Rights laws. HMRC can kick and spit as much as they like, but in the end, right at the end, it will be the Law courts that decide how this all plays out. HMRC is not the law.

[malvolio]

People keep saying Boyle is irrelevant. It isn't, if I'm reading the judgement correctly (and I freely admit I may not be). The judge is saying that moving the income out of the UK to a different tax regime is the trigger; how the mechanics of it were done is not important, it was the intent to put UK income out of UK Taxation for no sound business reason that was why he lost. The detail doesn't matter, it's that underlying principle they are relying on.

[jbryce]

Well worst case scenario, providing you can prove what the figures should be then that's the end of it. I don't think they'll argue with you if you were actually telling them what the true figure is, and then offering to pay the tax, I think they'd be quite eager to take your money.

Buying certificates of tax deposit here can help manage the interest. Not sure how the late payment penalties would work in that situation.

I'm chasing this through C&M/CHelpdesk - but my accountant (not from the IoM!!) is advising me to wait. His view is that Boyle was an easy target and that at some point HMRC need to pursue each individual scheme and, at present, potentially each individual scheme user. They are not guaranteed to win every one.

The new proposed legislation will make it simple for them to win one case against one poorly funded scheme user and infer, from that, the guilt of all other scheme users. His view is that even with the new legislation Boyle, for example, could not easily be used to tackle all other EBT schemes; it is likely that such a simplistic approach would be subject to a legal challenge under Human Rights legislation. Until we see the legislation we will not know.

Don't let them bully you; stress is a weapon that HMRC are very good at deploying.

[jbryce]

Boyle's Law - not likely.

People keep saying Boyle is irrelevant. It isn't, if I'm reading the judgement correctly (and I freely admit I may not be). The judge is saying that moving the income out of the UK to a different tax regime is the trigger; how the mechanics of it were done is not important, it was the intent to put UK income out of UK Taxation for no sound business reason that was why he lost. The detail doesn't matter, it's that underlying principle they are relying on.

In the present state of affairs the reading of the Boyle judgement and its applicability (or otherwise) would be a matter for the courts and, dare I say it, specialist lawyers in this field. Until the Sanzar scheme, and others, is placed before the court none of us know. For example- the Rangers EBT will not be decided based on the Boyle case, but on its own merits. Your reading above would suggest that the Boyle case is sufficient for Rangers to already have been deemed to have lost. They may well lose, but it will not be by inference from the Boyle case.

[malvolio]

In the present state of affairs the reading of the Boyle judgement and its applicability (or otherwise) would be a matter for the courts and, dare I say it, specialist lawyers in this field. Until the Sanzar scheme, and others, is placed before the court none of us know. For example- the Rangers EBT will not be decided based on the Boyle case, but on its own merits. Your reading above would suggest that the Boyle case is sufficient for Rangers to already have been deemed to have lost. They may well lose, but it will not be by inference from the Boyle case.

Yes, but Rangers is about a corporation (actually a group of linked companies) using an incorrect structure for an otherwise valid EBT. Your cases are about individuals taking a course of action that mirrors that of Boyle in its intent if not its execution.

I'm a long way from being an expert and I don't know if I'm right or wrong, but it's not me facing the problem. If you're going to challenge it, at least be very clear on what it is you're challenging. Fingers in ears won't help anyone.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

People keep saying Boyle is irrelevant. It isn't, if I'm reading the judgement correctly (and I freely admit I may not be). The judge is saying that moving the income out of the UK to a different tax regime is the trigger; how the mechanics of it were done is not important, it was the intent to put UK income out of UK Taxation for no sound business reason that was why he lost. The detail doesn't matter, it's that underlying principle they are relying on.

I agree - if a scheme is wholly contrived and has been developed for no other reason than to avoid tax then specific mechanisms are, to a degree, irrelevant. Chris Moyles is a prime example - the scheme's mechanism involved him becoming an 'on paper' car dealer but the tax tribunal found that the arrangement was a sham and had no other purpose than to avoid tax. With any tax avoidance scheme, if you cant back it up with sound commercial principals, you run a significant risk of it failing for this reason.

[vern19]

People keep saying Boyle is irrelevant. It isn't, if I'm reading the judgement correctly (and I freely admit I may not be). The judge is saying that moving the income out of the UK to a different tax regime is the trigger; how the mechanics of it were done is not important, it was the intent to put UK income out of UK Taxation for no sound business reason that was why he lost. The detail doesn't matter, it's that underlying principle they are relying on.

There are a few professionals who make scare mongering posts on this forum as way of touting for business. I understand their agenda

There are a few amateurs who are probably not affected by this fiasco who also make scare mongering posts. I just cannot understand what motivates them

I'm sure the vast majority of people affected are already represented by a CTA. I would recommend only taking advice from professionals and just wait to see how this pans out. At worst this will be a financial hit. So what, just get on with your life. There's plenty of time to make up for this financial mess.