HMRC enquiries for Schemes through ASMG / White Collar

[famousfive]

SSRS - Very well put - If you haven't already, suggest you PM Turnover on here to request access to the Private White Collar Group

[me53]

PM rights

Admin - could you set me up with PM rights

[StrengthInNumbers]

I was also initially very excited about this argument. But later found out that HMRC can pass on the PAYE to employee if they want to. We all were employees and our employers should've held totally accountable for this. But unfortunately law allows HMRC to collect from us as collecting from companies is difficult or not possible. HMRC has chosen the least path of resistance to meet targets set by politicians.

[administrator]

Admin - could you set me up with PM rights

Done!

[SR225]

Hello 'famous five'
Did you refer to me to join ? , SRS ?...I am SR225. I would like to join but not sure how to do it, implication was that I had to register with a particular Firm....but I have own representation

IMO
HMRC 's position is the Company's scheme is unlawful Tax avoidance, and guilt by association....that may be too simplistic.... they assume everyone is compliant and intended to avoid Tax.

IMO
As for the Provider, Just consider the elements of Breach of Contract and Negligence.
Failure of promise, breach of duty of care, causation, loss..........!!!
There is another different legal point that a Court could also consider.
I cannot say more in a public forum.

I stress these are just my opinions / ideas and even if there is a legal point of redress it wouldnt be easy and best considered as a group. But as I said, I cannot join the WC group.

[SR225]

[StrengthofNumbers...
Path of least resistemce is exactly right.......

IMO HMRC have a legal duty to go for the Providers and confirm
a) their scheme is illegal so they have a proper legal case and
b) fine the Providers.....that stage is easy.

IMO they dont for two reasons....

a) They want Tax revenue. Deciding a case early can set a legal presidence, if they lose. First intimmidate Contractors to pay up first. Then go for the scheme.

b) Tax avoidance by error is one thing but what Scheme Providers did could be said to be deliberate tax avoidance on behalf of clients for sole purpose of profit. Deliberate is Evasion. Deception is Evasion. But prosecuting Providers for evasion, could then give you a possible argument for defence to say firstly you cannot be liable for evasion, and you cannot be liable for criminal acts of a Firm you had a contract with, so no revenue.....

IMO, HMRC should be pushed to prosecute the Providers for Tax evasion.
Perhaps we should report them to HMRC to try to force this.
HMRC surely are obliged to deal with a complaint.
That could force it to a criminal situation.
Also HMRC let these Firms trade openly without regulation for so long...why ?

[webberg]

[StrengthofNumbers...
Path of least resistemce is exactly right.......

IMO HMRC have a legal duty to go for the Providers and confirm
a) their scheme is illegal so they have a proper legal case and
b) fine the Providers.....that stage is easy.
?

Incorrect.

The clue is "self" assessment. YOU are responsible for YOUR tax position.

If HMRC consider that you have done something that is inconsistent with their interpretation of tax law, the burden of proof is on YOU.

Excepting some situations around discovery and penalty, the burden of proof is ALWAYS with YOU.

HMRC has no powers to request information from third parties except where an enquiry is under way. Where the providers are not in the UK they are generally not obliged to answer requests.

HMRC (certainly) and the UK justice system (probably) has no power to fine non UK entities for non compliance.

HMRC has NO legal duty to chase providers, no mechanism to do that and no mandate.

[webberg]

[StrengthofNumbers...

b) Tax avoidance by error is one thing but what Scheme Providers did could be said to be deliberate tax avoidance on behalf of clients for sole purpose of profit. Deliberate is Evasion. Deception is Evasion. But prosecuting Providers for evasion, could then give you a possible argument for defence to say firstly you cannot be liable for evasion, and you cannot be liable for criminal acts of a Firm you had a contract with, so no revenue.....

Scheme providers said "do this and you pay £x in tax". They did not say "do this or else we will threaten your family".

You made a choice to join and use their scheme. The provider probably thought that their scheme was effective and some may have taken better advice than others and they may have enticed you in with weasel words but at the end of the day it was YOUR decision.

The degree to which you conducted diligence was probably based on your level of trust in the providers and perhaps your understanding of the tax system and the effects of the scheme.

You'll find however that relying on another party's analysis of the situation is no defence.

The providers did not practice evasion. They may have provided a platform for others to do so but if they were acting in good faith and gave due warnings, HMRC cannot touch them.

There may be a case for a local regulator to take action. I have investigated that with a UK and an IoM lawyer. Regulation was (and is) laughably weak in IoM and the chances are that a legal action takes so long, the provider and all its assets will be dust before you get to Court.

[webberg]

[StrengthofNumbers...

IMO, HMRC should be pushed to prosecute the Providers for Tax evasion.
Perhaps we should report them to HMRC to try to force this.
HMRC surely are obliged to deal with a complaint.
That could force it to a criminal situation.
Also HMRC let these Firms trade openly without regulation for so long...why ?

1. Impossible
2. By all means report away
3. No
4. No
5. HMRC has no power to close firms down, especially non UK firms.

See above - providers were the media by which (HMRC allege) INDIVIDUALS avoided tax.

I apologise if this string of responses has strayed into offence.

I passionately believe that contractors as individuals and groups must act together in taking practical steps to deal with the realities of their position.

[SR225]

Hello webberg,

I didn't say it was a solution, I said IMO Providers 'should be reported'.
I imagine you have considered every way to transfer liability to the true culprits.

I agree, HMRC are looking for a "civil" settlement to cover the tax and interest they consider to be due (plus, any financial penalty).

The correct form of redress is civil action.
You don't have any duty in Civil Law to be a Tax expert or understand financial affairs.
Contract Law will assume Promoters do. A breach of trust, promise or legality breaches contract.

I personally signed up to use an Umbrella Company. As far as I am concerned the Firms 'scheme'
and how they go about things is internal and their issue.

As I said before, a Company cannot disolve if it has creditors. Rules are strict.
As I am aware White Collar is UK based.