HMRC enquiries for Schemes through ASMG / White Collar

[new user]

HMRC is acting in support of the scheme providers

1. Most of the 'schemes' providers are UK based and controlled by the UK authorities (ASMG for sure)
2. All money manipulations are done by providers - opening overseas accounts, transfers abroad and back, trusts....
3. Contractors earned money in the UK and receive money in the UK (minus providers commission - in my case it was comparable with the tax as I used it for several weeks). Contractors are not aware about 'mechanics' behind these schemes.
4. There were/are cases where scheme providers were promoted by employment agencies.
5. HMRC was aware about the situation and didn't provide any information/warnings, at least it should have inform/use other government agencies and take actions.

[webberg]

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.

As I said - my apologies - I got a bit carried away.

I've been in this world for a long time. I can almost certainly guarantee that the providers contracts and materials all have small print transferring obligations to users.

Your "contract" was probably for the management of engagements, invoicing, fees, etc. The contract would NOT have included any guarantees as to tax treatment because the ONLY arbiter of that is a Court. Consequently a commercial company may offer some form of protection in terms of insuring the costs of litigating etc but NEVER the tax outcome.

It's impossible to do and as such not capable of being in a contract.

[JanuaryJones]

What irks me is that I had declared to the penny my earnings on my 2009 tax return and was taxed.
But in 2013 the Tax man decides that 2009 was underpaid due to blah blah that they knew about since 2009.

[webberg]

1. Most of the 'schemes' providers are UK based and controlled by the UK authorities (ASMG for sure)
2. All money manipulations are done by providers - opening overseas accounts, transfers abroad and back, trusts....
3. Contractors earned money in the UK and receive money in the UK (minus providers commission - in my case it was comparable with the tax as I used it for several weeks). Contractors are not aware about 'mechanics' behind these schemes.
4. There were/are cases where scheme providers were promoted by employment agencies.
5. HMRC was aware about the situation and didn't provide any information/warnings, at least it should have inform/use other government agencies and take actions.

1. Really? All the Montpelier arrangements would be IoM. I know AML's parent is IoM based. These firms, even if in the UK are not "controlled" by anything other than common law. They are not required to meet FSA rules, not part of any financial or banking regulatory body, not part of of any trade assoication. The UK authorities can no more control these firms than they can your local greengrocer.

2. They may have undertaken all of that BUT read your agreements. You almost certainly gave them permission.

3. Contractors SHOULD have been aware of the mechanics. It's your money. You should be sure that you know what's going on. The argument that the money started in the UK and ended in the UK is a free gift to HMRC. They would say "then why did you permit it to go through an offshore trust?" "Was it because you thought that would reduce the tax?" Commission arrangements and values = irrelevant.

4. Being unkind - so what?

5. Why? HMRC's job is tax. They have no ability to intervene in any commercial business. As is pointed out above, in 2008 HMRC did put out a warning that they had concerns. That should have been an alarm bell. Instead many providers made a few changes and later decided not to disclose (another potentially expensive can of worms for anybody who did one of those).

It all comes back to SELF assessment under which YOU are responsible for YOUR tax.

If you choose to be lax in your checking of facts or place your trust in others, caveat emptor.

[oldman]

Admin - please may I have rights to PM

THanks

[administrator]

Admin - please may I have rights to PM

THanks

You have access to the PM system.

[famousfive]

Hello 'famous five'

Hi SR225 - yes meant you - might be worth Private Message to turnover for a chat about private group findings

[dundeel]

Turnover?

Is turnover about? I messaged to join the group a couple of weeks ago but got no response. Any suggestions?

[notsofun]

Is turnover about? I messaged to join the group a couple of weeks ago but got no response. Any suggestions?

I think he has not been on the forums since 13th of April, that is what his profile says. Can anyone else help?

[turnover]

I think he has not been on the forums since 13th of April, that is what his profile says. Can anyone else help?

Hello Guys,

Sincere apologies for not responding to you earlier. Due to other commitments I've not been able to spend the time I'd like to respond.

Anyone who has sent me a private message I will respond to with updates immediately. Anyone else who has not sent a personal email please do so and I will provide updates for you aswell.