Edge EBT thread

[jbeer]

Happy to PM you my view which is admittedly another opinion, but one informed by examining several dozen CLSO calculations and discussions with HMRC.

Thanks, yes I would be very keen to hear your opinion on this.

[meanttobeworking]

Yes. Essentially the same terms but with the added ingredient of penalties.

Thanks. Do you know how much the penalties are?

[webberg]

I guess its not been clear to me that the clso is not full closure and I'm struggling to see the evidence around. I can certainly find lots of people expressing an opinion but not evidence.
In the clso document it states...
"This will give you certainty about your tax liabilities, and save you and us costs. Reaching agreement now will mean that liabilities in relation to sums you have received under these arrangements for years up to and including 2010/11 are final.

This to me is evidence that it is full closure but maybe I'm being naive ?

Regardless, I agree that everyone has different circumstances and can totally see why clso is not an option you want to pursue.

Happy to PM you my view which is admittedly another opinion, but one informed by examining several dozen CLSO calculations and discussions with HMRC.

[webberg]

Interestingly, when I called the CLSO help line the other week (to chase up a reply to a letter sent many months before) their automated system said that although the deadline had passed, you can still discuss settlement with them although the terms may not be the same as the original settlement offer. I wonder what terms callers who had not registered before the deadline would be offered? I'm not sure how they could come up with / get away with less appealing settlement terms, but at the same time keeping the terms the same would make a mockery of the whole settlement opportunity / deadline.

Has anyone that hasn't registered asked the question?

Yes. Essentially the same terms but with the added ingredient of penalties.

[regron]

This to me is evidence that it is full closure but maybe I'm being naive ?

Wouldn't say you are being naive and totally understand your frustration. The whole thing is a complete circus. Perhaps I didn't word my post too well and instead of saying there is plenty of evidence to support non-closure, I should have said there has been plenty of discussion around it, where full closure is debatable, mainly around IHT. For example, the wording where they don't 'believe' IHT is due for a particular scheme, but that isn't to say it won't be due in the future !! That to me says 'No full closure'.

Graham from Big Group provided a good statement around CLSO and what to be aware of when studying the offer. Naturally I am a fully paid member, so not in a position to share in the public forum. On the other hand, I am also not trying to talk you into joining. At the end of the day, all the advice I have read from various sources comes down to what we both already know and have stated. It is down to the individual's circumstances whether the CLSO is a viable option or not.

[meanttobeworking]

I guess its not been clear to me that the clso is not full closure and I'm struggling to see the evidence around. I can certainly find lots of people expressing an opinion but not evidence.
In the clso document it states...
"This will give you certainty about your tax liabilities, and save you and us costs. Reaching agreement now will mean that liabilities in relation to sums you have received under these arrangements for years up to and including 2010/11 are final.

This to me is evidence that it is full closure but maybe I'm being naive ?

Regardless, I agree that everyone has different circumstances and can totally see why clso is not an option you want to pursue.

If it were that statement alone, I'd agree, but in other areas it leaves it much more open to different interpretations. And most of us have a high level of mistrust for this particular department.

[jbeer]

IEither way, what is certainly clear, is it is not full closure and there is plenty of evidence around to support that.

I guess its not been clear to me that the clso is not full closure and I'm struggling to see the evidence around. I can certainly find lots of people expressing an opinion but not evidence.
In the clso document it states...
"This will give you certainty about your tax liabilities, and save you and us costs. Reaching agreement now will mean that liabilities in relation to sums you have received under these arrangements for years up to and including 2010/11 are final.

This to me is evidence that it is full closure but maybe I'm being naive ?

Regardless, I agree that everyone has different circumstances and can totally see why clso is not an option you want to pursue.

[regron]

Still in a quandary about it but based on the reasons stated maybe clso is not such a bad idea ?

I think CLSO has always come down to personal circumstances based on how many years you have exposure to vs how many years HMRC come for you for, along with the type of scheme you were on with regards to whether or not IHT is due. Either way, what is certainly clear, is it is not full closure and there is plenty of evidence around to support that.

Personally, I have APN exposure to date of >£40,000 and I received my CLSO on Friday offering a settlement for £110,000

The fact I will (hopefully) have my day in court, I will go down the APN route and fight to the end (regardless), delaying payment as long as possible whether it gathers penalties or not. Maverick and careless approach some might say, but without HMRC bending their TTP rules, I am not in a position to pay either way, so **** em !

Hopefully that answers your query the other day as to why I am not interested in making a payment on account against my CLSO (I hadn't received it then and was told I might not before the 30th Sep) even if it was to offset my APN. As well as not being able to trust anything they do, or say !!

[jbeer]

Be VERY CLEAR here.

If you registered for the CLSO then this has to be agreed before 30th September according to HMRC. You can no longer apply for CLSO.

My guess is that HMRC has a lot of catching up here and may extend that deadline for agreement, but for the moment they're holding that line.

If however you have an APN that is due BEFORE the payment required under the CLSO (which is essentially any APN issued before 30th September as the settlement has a 90 day payment window) then failure to pay the APN will result in a late payment penalty/surcharge.

The APN should therefore be paid to avoid the additional 5% charge.

Quite how HMRC will manage this if instalments for APN and/or CLSO are agreed, I don't yet know.

DO NOT assume that if you have CLSO figures or even if you have sent back the forms accepting the CLSO (why?) that you are exempt from paying the APN - you are not.

Accepting the CLSO (why).

Reasons fi can see for accepting if you can afford the interest right now are ...

You pay the income tax + interest with no NI and no penalty.
You don't have this hanging over you anymore.

If you don't accept.....

You pay the income tax with probably the interest to pay somewhere down the line and the threat of NI and the threat of a penalty.

Still in a quandary about it but based on the reasons stated maybe clso is not such a bad idea ?

[meanttobeworking]

You can no longer apply for CLSO.

Interestingly, when I called the CLSO help line the other week (to chase up a reply to a letter sent many months before) their automated system said that although the deadline had passed, you can still discuss settlement with them although the terms may not be the same as the original settlement offer. I wonder what terms callers who had not registered before the deadline would be offered? I'm not sure how they could come up with / get away with less appealing settlement terms, but at the same time keeping the terms the same would make a mockery of the whole settlement opportunity / deadline.

Has anyone that hasn't registered asked the question?