HMRC enquiries for EBT schemes through SANZAR

[malvolio]

>You been subject to penalties for deliberate tax evasion?
You haven't evaded tax - you have avoided it. That, once upon a time, was legal.

You sure about that? The original scheme may have been an avoidance measure, hence the DOTAS registration. It might, at a stretch, become evasion if he scheme can be shown to be improperly set up and you can be shown to have mis-declared your earned income. Hopefully it won't, and HMRC aren't using the E word but sticking to "unacceptable avoidance", but don't discount the possibility: it only takes one test case.

[gamechanger]

You're clear on that though, look at the wording...'evasion' not 'avoidance'.

Nobody who has used any of these schemes has been accused of tax evasion at all, so you can clearly answer no to that question.

They're more interested in if you've been caught lying to the taxman, not if you used a 'disputed' scheme.

Cheers

[gamechanger]

Cheers

I am planning to call HMRC up next week and what they have to offer...

[MrO666]

You sure about that? The original scheme may have been an avoidance measure, hence the DOTAS registration. It might, at a stretch, become evasion if he scheme can be shown to be improperly set up and you can be shown to have mis-declared your earned income. Hopefully it won't, and HMRC aren't using the E word but sticking to "unacceptable avoidance", but don't discount the possibility: it only takes one test case.

Surely to try to prove evasion, HMRC will without question need to prove that you were complicit in deliberately and intentionally evading tax due. By showing that you used an accountant to prepare and submit your self-assessment (which demonstrates professional advice sought), and that your self-assessment clearly showed evidence that you were engaged in a DOTAS scheme, then I don't think for one second that HMRC would attempt that one, it's not worth their time or effort, as once a scheme is beaten then all users are on the hook regardless, so why would they then try to up the ante which would require yet more rounds of legal wrangling.

[MrO666]

I am planning to call HMRC up next week and what they have to offer...

I wouldn't call HMRC unless you know the figures first.

The first thing they will want from you will be evidence of exactly what you received in loans.

Assuming you're happy to give them that and for them to issue a revised assessment based upon those figures, then go for it.

Remember though, just because they issue you a revised assessment, doesn't need you need to pay it (not at this stage anyway). I agree though that it's sensible to at least get the numbers correct in preparation for any impending battle.

[jbryce]

You sure about that? The original scheme may have been an avoidance measure, hence the DOTAS registration. It might, at a stretch, become evasion if he scheme can be shown to be improperly set up and you can be shown to have mis-declared your earned income. Hopefully it won't, and HMRC aren't using the E word but sticking to "unacceptable avoidance", but don't discount the possibility: it only takes one test case.

We could have a really excellent medical/software house start-up in a Pentonville.

It's a good point - although I think most people naively assumed/hoped/expected that they were entering into an 'at the time' legal arrangement - so deliberate evasion may be difficult to prove.

HMRC know that, as professionals, we will try and sort something out with them. They have no interest in seeing a significant tranche of IT professionals or Medical professionals (I know two surgical consultants who used this scheme) going to jail.

HMRC want the money, we either stand up (and fight) or bend over (and take it) - either way the denouement to this sad, expensive tale is at hand.

[malvolio]

Surely to try to prove evasion, HMRC will without question need to prove that you were complicit in deliberately and intentionally evading tax due. By showing that you used an accountant to prepare and submit your self-assessment (which demonstrates professional advice sought), and that your self-assessment clearly showed evidence that you were engaged in a DOTAS scheme, then I don't think for one second that HMRC would attempt that one, it's not worth their time or effort, as once a scheme is beaten then all users are on the hook regardless, so why would they then try to up the ante which would require yet more rounds of legal wrangling.

I also don't believe they will go there - but people still need to be aware of the possibility. There's been a lot of possibly misplaced optimism in these various threads but you shouldn't ignore worse-case scenarios when preparing your responses.

[MrO666]

I also don't believe they will go there - but people still need to be aware of the possibility. There's been a lot of possibly misplaced optimism in these various threads but you shouldn't ignore worse-case scenarios when preparing your responses.

Quite agree.

I think ultimately people need to start understanding that at some point in time, HMRC will probably in most cases win the argument, or grind people down so much that it's easier to pay than to argue.

I'm not saying I think it's right, but we all know who we're dealing with here.

Myself, i'm resigned to the fact that I will end up having to pay them something, it's just when and how much now really.

[gamechanger]

Quite agree.

I think ultimately people need to start understanding that at some point in time, HMRC will probably in most cases win the argument, or grind people down so much that it's easier to pay than to argue.

I'm not saying I think it's right, but we all know who we're dealing with here.

Myself, i'm resigned to the fact that I will end up having to pay them something, it's just when and how much now really.

Any chance this will go to court in future and we might win it? What if Rangers WIN?

[davieloco]

Any chance this will go to court in future and we might win it? What if Rangers WIN?

The problem is that if the new legislation goes through which works on the you pay now and then fight for it to get back we will have had to have paid the HMRC anyway. I cannot see them letting go of the money that easily as they will then say that every scheme is fundamentally different and the follower concept does not apply.

Hopefully I am wrong in this I just think that the political will is too great for this.

This has been posted already it is not a light read but gives a good idea as to what went on at the Rangers Tribunal

http://www.tsfm.net/utt-thread/

DL