HMRC Consultative Document - marketed tax avoidance schemes

[varunksingh]

Understand and agree. In fact HMRC knows this is the best time for all this because public mood is with them.

I just hope courts don't get influenced with public mood and decide the cases on law apart from anything else.

[LandRover]

Understand and agree. In fact HMRC knows this is the best time for all this because public mood is with them.

I just hope courts don't get influenced with public mood and decide the cases on law apart from anything else.

Yes Public mood at moment would have us strung up and hanged by the nearest tree, as sadly the truth is that tax avoidance is now deemed as illegal even though its is NOT!

Hindsight is wonderful, but annoyed I took chartered accountants advice to join a scheme, obviously his % every month was his incentive

Have to hope I have saved enough to pay good chunk of whats coming via APN, and hope eventually a tribunal applies judgment like the Rangers case.

It's going to be interesting on what legal basis HMRC decide to go after DoTAS EBT cases

[varunksingh]

HMRC will try ToAA and definitely Ramsey

[LandRover]

HMRC will try ToAA and definitely Ramsey

And what previous case law can they use to state that EBT scheme is anything like it?

Ramsey principle shot down in Rangers EBT case. So ToAA it is...

http://www.taxation.co.uk/taxation/A...ntervention-eu

[varunksingh]

ToAA will also get shot down. But HMRC will not stop. I was just say what they will continue to use.

[Rob79]

Just be aware that HMRC does NOT require a "legal basis" to issue an APN if the scheme has a DOTAS number.

Where there is no DOTAS number then HMRC will need there to be a Follower Notice or GAAR counteraction to issue a demand.

The Rangers case is likely to be appealed and as such tax will still be "in dispute".

I suspect we might also see HMRC arguing that EBT's etc on which they issue APN's or FN's will be "distinguished on their facts".

[LandRover]

Just be aware that HMRC does NOT require a "legal basis" to issue an APN if the scheme has a DOTAS number.

Where there is no DOTAS number then HMRC will need there to be a Follower Notice or GAAR counteraction to issue a demand.

The Rangers case is likely to be appealed and as such tax will still be "in dispute".

I suspect we might also see HMRC arguing that EBT's etc on which they issue APN's or FN's will be "distinguished on their facts".

The Rangers Appeal was pretty damning to HMRC's arguments, can't see appeal myself as judge threw only crumbs of comfort concerning termination payments.

HMRC can argue facts but EBT's using loans have been acknowledged as not income.

No doubt APN will be sent out to all DoTAS schemes, but they had better understand there will be a fight on their hands and they need to be VERY confident they will win otherwise the tide can move very quickly against them if they lose one case. Remember they will have to "pay interest" on any monies returned to us, and to pay back out significant amounts back will be extremely embarassing to the top brass of HMRC.

[eek]

The Rangers Appeal was pretty damning to HMRC's arguments, can't see appeal myself as judge threw only crumbs of comfort concerning termination payments.

HMRC can argue facts but EBT's using loans have been acknowledged as not income.

No doubt APN will be sent out to all DoTAS schemes, but they had better understand there will be a fight on their hands and they need to be VERY confident they will win otherwise the tide can move very quickly against them if they lose one case. Remember they will have to "pay interest" on any monies returned to us, and to pay back out significant amounts back will be extremely embarassing to the top brass of HMRC.

I'll lay odds that the income they get from those that give up will more than cover the interest.

Don't forget that the purpose of the APN is not to get money HMRC and taxpayers are arguing over in quicker, it is to make these and any future schemes very unattractive to potential future customers...

I don't think HMRC actually like the idea of using APNs on existing participants (its a world of pain that won't be easily resolved). I do, however expect them to use APNs gleefully on anyone in such a scheme on April 5th 2015....

[jbryce]

I'll lay odds that the income they get from those that give up will more than cover the interest.

Don't forget that the purpose of the APN is not to get money HMRC and taxpayers are arguing over in quicker, it is to make these and any future schemes very unattractive to potential future customers...

I don't think HMRC actually like the idea of using APNs on existing participants (its a world of pain that won't be easily resolved). I do, however expect them to use APNs gleefully on anyone in such a scheme on April 5th 2015....

...are you my accountant? He's just said the same thing. We will/may get hit with APNs. There's a (relatively) clear process - a sh1T one, but it's there.

FNs are the disaster - with lawyers rubbing their hands in glee at the potential fall out of a user being tarred with the failures of another case without having recourse to fight it as best they can etc. etc. For example, no one really thinks that ToAA is an HMRC slam dunk and they invested heavily in trying to win the Rangers case and advertising that they expected to win. They didn't. HMRC aren't the LAW.

They have - without a shadow of a doubt - killed schemes and frankly that's a good thing. The only users of contractor focussed schemes now are the deluded and they're probably too thick to get a contract anyway.

[LandRover]

I'll lay odds that the income they get from those that give up will more than cover the interest.

Don't forget that the purpose of the APN is not to get money HMRC and taxpayers are arguing over in quicker, it is to make these and any future schemes very unattractive to potential future customers...

I don't think HMRC actually like the idea of using APNs on existing participants (its a world of pain that won't be easily resolved). I do, however expect them to use APNs gleefully on anyone in such a scheme on April 5th 2015....

WIth them declaring 33,000 users and 10,00 companies, then I dont share your view that they will not issue APN to retrospectively get monies they feel are due. Most wouldn't object to the law being prospective, in fact anyone on a scheme after this April 2014 should know better. The retrospective nature of the law that has been passed today is vindictive and unnecessary imho.