HMRC enquiries for EBT schemes through SANZAR

[malvolio]

Do you really, really promise to shut up? I really do see your point. Look, the Boyle case does not mandate/oblige or otherwise force me to pay a penny to the Tax Man. As it stands right now it has to go to court and be judged on its merits; who knows perhaps the Sanzar scheme had this covered. Boyle was a pretty poor implementation - my accountant (non IoM and not an EBT fan) was astounded that it even got as far as the FTT.

As for the new legislation - retrospective taxation is all the rage and defensible - to a point; but the powers HMRC want may well be a step too far. We'll have to wait and see.

I'll shut up because it's pointless arguing the point. But for one thing there is no element of retrospection here.

So by the proposed new rules you pay the tax up front and if you are then proved right in your assertion over what tax you owe, you get the overpayment back with interest. None of that has anything to do with the Sanzar scheme, other than HMRC saying it is sufficiently similar to other schemes to be in scope of an advanced demand. The correct net tax remains to be paid in due course, it's only about who's bank account it sits in earning interest, HMG's - where it might do some good - or yours where it might well mysteriously disappear before settlement is reached.

End of discussion, I'll leave you to sort your own mess out.

[vern19]

I'll shut up because it's pointless arguing the point.

End of discussion, I'll leave you to sort your own mess out.

Thanks for that. You can now get back to thinking of Olivia

[jbryce]

I'll shut up because it's pointless arguing the point. But for one thing there is no element of retrospection here.

So by the proposed new rules you pay the tax up front and if you are then proved right in your assertion over what tax you owe, you get the overpayment back with interest. None of that has anything to do with the Sanzar scheme, other than HMRC saying it is sufficiently similar to other schemes to be in scope of an advanced demand. The correct net tax remains to be paid in due course, it's only about who's bank account it sits in earning interest, HMG's - where it might do some good - or yours where it might well mysteriously disappear before settlement is reached.

End of discussion, I'll leave you to sort your own mess out.

I really think we have to wait and see what the new legislation brings. I do echo the advice I'm taking which is:

• I am not obliged by the Boyle judgement to hand over a penny to HMRC. They can ask, but they can also wait.
• I should wait and see the outcome of new 'proposed' legislation.
• That many EBTs may well have been effective and, until a court says otherwise, my appeal remains open.

Much as HMRC, and you, consider the discussion ended, it isn't.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

CIOT response to consultation

http://www.tax.org.uk/Resources/CIOT...20response.pdf

[MrO666]

http://www.tax.org.uk/Resources/CIOT...20response.pdf

Seems like a good response to me, well thought out.

I think more or less everybody is in agreement that all forms of tax avoidance need to be stopped, however we just need HMRC to be reasonable and within the realms of what is acceptable for previous use of these schemes that clearly were not (in most cases) invalid at the time they were used.

HMRC have had so many opportunities to stop most of these schemes in the past, yet they decided to do nothing. Now they realise that they really have dropped the ball and are trying any angle at all to try and cover their arse.

[jbryce]

Seems like a good response to me, well thought out.

I think more or less everybody is in agreement that all forms of tax avoidance need to be stopped, however we just need HMRC to be reasonable and within the realms of what is acceptable for previous use of these schemes that clearly were not (in most cases) invalid at the time they were used.

HMRC have had so many opportunities to stop most of these schemes in the past, yet they decided to do nothing. Now they realise that they really have dropped the ball and are trying any angle at all to try and cover their arse.

HMRC are still going to try and push it, although the amount of professional contention may well make them (rightly) think twice.

...anyway they have succeeded to a large extent.

Hands up those using schemes right now? C'mon anyone?
Hands up those who are wondering if the safest, safest way is to go through an Umbrella company that allows minimal teeny small expenses and then pays full PAYE and NIC contributions? Quite a few hands there.

[MrO666]

HMRC are still going to try and push it, although the amount of professional contention may well make them (rightly) think twice.

...anyway they have succeeded to a large extent.

Hands up those using schemes right now? C'mon anyone?
Hands up those who are wondering if the safest, safest way is to go through an Umbrella company that allows minimal teeny small expenses and then pays full PAYE and NIC contributions? Quite a few hands there.

LTD is still the clear way. Get your contracts reviewed for compliance by a reputable co, buy insurance from a very reputable co and then run your business as efficiently as possible.

Absolutely zero point in going through an Umbrella in my opinion, you might as well go permie and get the benefits that go with it.

[eek]

HMRC are still going to try and push it, although the amount of professional contention may well make them (rightly) think twice.

...anyway they have succeeded to a large extent.

Hands up those using schemes right now? C'mon anyone?
Hands up those who are wondering if the safest, safest way is to go through an Umbrella company that allows minimal teeny small expenses and then pays full PAYE and NIC contributions? Quite a few hands there.

Limited company everytime.

But then again all these schemes and umbrellas fail my No 1 business rule: Keep control of your money......

[jbryce]

Limited company everytime.

But then again all these schemes and umbrellas fail my No 1 business rule: Keep control of your money......

...Yup I do agree...

How many people going down the Ltd. path? Loads of hands.

[creativity]

...Yup I do agree...

How many people going down the Ltd. path? Loads of hands.

God yes Limited Company all the way. Since having mine and being VAT registered my total taxes are much improved than what would be the case with Umbrella or permanent work.
Not only that but I am also working with more companies than one so miles from being caught inside IR35.
Plus being limited it makes you think like a business so my turnover has improved.

If I feel HMRC are going to be unfair or bully me for my past mistakes than all that means is that I will push to improve my tax situation in the future to regain those losses, for example I will take directors loans, look to increase my expenses legitimately or perhaps look into R&D. So bottom line is what HMRC take from me now I will work hard to take more away from them over years, all legitimately I might add.
It just means my trust and respect of them will drop hence I work harder to get back what I feel is owed.