HMRC enquiries for EBT schemes through SANZAR

[MrO666]

Has anyone heard anything from our friends at Contractor Helpdesk? Been ominously quiet since the new legislation was announced. Would be nice to get some kind of feedback from them, even if it's not that positive. Feel a bit stranded....

Cheers
Tony

If I were you I wouldn't bank on hearing anything remotely productive from Contractor Helpdesk, or if I'm honest from Cobham Murphy either.

What you need to now consider is that if Cobham come looking for a fighting fund to do battle with HMRC, are you going to throw your hat (and money) into the ring or not ?

From a personal perspective (based purely on my thoughts and experiences), I'm not sure I will. I think the war against tax avoidance (legal or not) has now reached such a point that it's almost political suicide for any public figure or indeed judge to speak out in favour of it, whether it's entirely legal or not. I just can't see any judge having the balls to say actually, that's perfectly legal. The pressure from on high is clearly to find legal fault (however small) with these schemes, and remember that's all they need. The slightest chink in the armour is enough for HMRC to win a ruling that the scheme(s) were badly implemented and thus not in line with the law.....job done.

My belief is that one day sooner or later i'm going to need to settle with HMRC, and so i'm focusing my money and efforts in making sure I can do that if it happens. We can all argue about the legality etc of this that and the other, but ultimately HMRC only need to find the smallest chink to win the argument.

I'm not being negative here, i'm being realistic. People can bury their heads in the sand all day long, but this isn't going away.

[TonyTucker]

I'm leaning towards the "pay up" point of view. My exposure is quite a lot but just really want an end to this. I'm a realist and don't think that there will be any changes between now and July.

I'm also not prepared to invest £1000s in to a fighting fund for the result to be the same in a few years time. If I paid up now, I could get clear by the time any case is settled.

It's just the whole way that this has got to this stage that angers me.... That's another story though.

Cheers
Tony

[LandRover]

I think the war against tax avoidance (legal or not) has now reached such a point that it's almost political suicide for any public figure or indeed judge to speak out in favour of it, whether it's entirely legal or not. I just can't see any judge having the balls to say actually, that's perfectly legal. The pressure from on high is clearly to find legal fault (however small) with these schemes, and remember that's all they need. The slightest chink in the armour is enough for HMRC to win a ruling that the scheme(s) were badly implemented and thus not in line with the law.....job done.

The focus of Accountants/Tax Advisers/Legal Counsel should be aimed at not dismissing the argument of "tax avoidance", as I agree the public perception has been lost, but on the "retrospective" attack in the legislation. Fine we all agree going forward that tax avoidance schemes should register and be under no illusion that it will be challenged, but that should be from when the Finance Bill gets Royal Ascent. There is clear ill feeling that retrospective legislation is a step too far and sets up huge uncertainty going forward.

[jbryce]

Fight? Anyone?

I'm leaning towards the "pay up" point of view. My exposure is quite a lot but just really want an end to this. I'm a realist and don't think that there will be any changes between now and July.

I'm also not prepared to invest £1000s in to a fighting fund for the result to be the same in a few years time. If I paid up now, I could get clear by the time any case is settled.

It's just the whole way that this has got to this stage that angers me.... That's another story though.

Cheers
Tony

All I expect from Cobham Murphy is an indication if the scheme is defensible and then I'll move from there. Cobham Murphy are an established firm, so I would be inclined to listen to them.

Sanzar did say, at the time, that they would defend the scheme to a FTT. As they've disappeared I guess that may be difficult.

Interestingly - Sanzar morphed into Garraway, who morphed into, well, Garraway and the current Garraway offering is also offering FTT support. I guess users should be wary that the current incarnation of Garraway will disappear, pass on their stuff to Contractor Helpdesk and there will be no support for FTT - not that anyone is daft enough to still be with them. What? People are? Jeez.

Perhaps a fighting fund would be better targeted elsewhere......

[MrO666]

I didn't want to come across as either negative or defeatist, I just want to paint as clear a picture as I believe.

I believe that too many people out there are peddling what probably amounts to false hope. Anybody in our position should not be blinded to the facts that in all honesty, one day sooner or later you will probably have to pay HMRC 'something'. Whether it's the full disputed figure or not I have no idea, but I think we will all be writing out cheques one day.

I think too many people are desperately clinging on and hoping that this all goes away, or that a magic wand gets waved and HMRC drop it all.......it's not going to happen.

So you're left with 3 choices in my book:

1) Do nothing and put your head back in the sand and keep thinking it isn't happening, which will result in you being totally unprepared when it does.

2) Start working out how you will pay any money and start to get it together.

3) Start thinking about whether you would fight HMRC on this, and if so what it's going to cost you.

Personally, I'm in camp 2. I'm not wasting a copper coin in battling HMRC regarding a scheme that not a single one of us have any TRUE idea if it would stand up to scrutiny or not. I feel that if Cobham thought the scheme was watertight, then there would have been more communication from them by now, even if it was only to gauge support for a fighting fund.

Even if it does have a damn good case, how many 10's if not 100's of thousands are Cobham going to want to take this all the way. Then if they loose, the only winners are Cobham, as they get paid regardless, you and I are left sitting there owing even more.

I'm a big boy, I knew what I was doing when I used Sanzar, as I believed most people did.........some you win, some you loose

[jbryce]

I didn't want to come across as either negative or defeatist, I just want to paint as clear a picture as I believe.

I believe that too many people out there are peddling what probably amounts to false hope. Anybody in our position should not be blinded to the facts that in all honesty, one day sooner or later you will probably have to pay HMRC 'something'. Whether it's the full disputed figure or not I have no idea, but I think we will all be writing out cheques one day.

I think too many people are desperately clinging on and hoping that this all goes away, or that a magic wand gets waved and HMRC drop it all.......it's not going to happen.

So you're left with 3 choices in my book:

1) Do nothing and put your head back in the sand and keep thinking it isn't happening, which will result in you being totally unprepared when it does.

2) Start working out how you will pay any money and start to get it together.

3) Start thinking about whether you would fight HMRC on this, and if so what it's going to cost you.

Personally, I'm in camp 2. I'm not wasting a copper coin in battling HMRC regarding a scheme that not a single one of us have any TRUE idea if it would stand up to scrutiny or not. I feel that if Cobham thought the scheme was watertight, then there would have been more communication from them by now, even if it was only to gauge support for a fighting fund.

Even if it does have a damn good case, how many 10's if not 100's of thousands are Cobham going to want to take this all the way. Then if they loose, the only winners are Cobham, as they get paid regardless, you and I are left sitting there owing even more.

I'm a big boy, I knew what I was doing when I used Sanzar, as I believed most people did.........some you win, some you loose

I don't think Cobham Murphy have a clue if it's viable or not.

...on a 'sort of related' note - I just came off the phone to my accountant, as he points out HMRC will have to understand how the scheme worked, at some level, in order to apply a follower notice and relate it to a similar case. I have no idea how the scheme worked, CM probably have no idea, my accountant has no idea (he hates EBTs), Sanzar have disappeared - so how will HMRC know?

Will the DOTAS declaration describe how it worked?

[eek]

I don't think Cobham Murphy have a clue if it's viable or not.

...on a 'sort of related' note - I just came off the phone to my accountant, as he points out HMRC will have to understand how the scheme worked, at some level, in order to apply a follower notice and relate it to a similar case. I have no idea how the scheme worked, CM probably have no idea, my accountant has no idea (he hates EBTs), Sanzar have disappeared - so how will HMRC know?

Will the DOTAS declaration describe how it worked?

I would imagine the follower notice will be on that basis that it was a marketed EBT and with no-one to protect the members lets just say it looks like....

If its not then they can appeal.....

[MrO666]

Not saying i'm right here, but I imagine that when Sanzar registered the scheme with HMRC (for DOTAS reasons), then I would have imagined that they would have had to provide details then......although I could of course be wrong.

[gamechanger]

Not saying i'm right here, but I imagine that when Sanzar registered the scheme with HMRC (for DOTAS reasons), then I would have imagined that they would have had to provide details then......although I could of course be wrong.

HMRC powers to raid bank accounts 'could be illegal', MPs told - Telegraph

[creativity]

Well that's a start of an amendment, what's the chances of the retrospective DOTAS part of the bill being amended?