HMRC Consultative Document - marketed tax avoidance schemes

[Rob79]

I would agree with Mr Landrover to a degree.

The spin coming out with the APN is that it's never HMRC holding up litigation or settlement discussions progressing and is usually the taxpayer causing this. My personal experience is that HMRC often delays cases they think are marginal and push those egregious ones so that their win percentage is maintained.

Quite how HMRC having the money first will cause them to speed up resolution is escaping me at the moment.

Litigation is a long process. Applying for a hearing date for the First Tier Tribunal today will get you something in June next year. Assuming no procedural matters interfere (and HMRC asking for more time is not unusual) then a decision is perhaps late 2015. Next level is Upper Tier Tribunal. A case going there might take another 12/18 months. Next is Court of Appeal say 12 months. Then Supreme Court, say another 18 months.

Minimum from today is late 2019.

New Tribunal judges are being recruited but even then making this process quicker is unlikely in the short term.

[flamel]

So 5 1/2 years at least. If it's an Ebt, because of Rangers, even longer. If the Barclay Brother's VAT case is anything to go by, started in 2007 and expected to go on until 2017 as HMRC don't like the judgement this year, then EBT cases may not be decided until 2025.

[Rob79]

Very recently released CGT case.

Disposal of business in mid 2000. Court hearing May 2014, decision July 2014.

Defeat on all points for HMRC.

However EBT/EFURB/EEFURB/FURB/IPP all massively more important. I'd expect Rangers case in an English Court before the year end.

[Not Losing Any Sleep]

Very recently released CGT case.

Disposal of business in mid 2000. Court hearing May 2014, decision July 2014.

Defeat on all points for HMRC.

However EBT/EFURB/EEFURB/FURB/IPP all massively more important. I'd expect Rangers case in an English Court before the year end.

It will be an interesting call for HMRC on whether they appeal the UTT decision. They only have two weeks or so to seek permission to appeal. They might not appeal and they might not get permission. I'm also sure that there will be a number of Judicial reviews on APN with respect to whether the Rangers UTT decision is relevant to other EBT's and RT's. The brilliant Mr Thornhill will be kept busy, as will HMRC's highly paid silks.

[flamel]

Why would HMRC concede on any of these cases without being forced by the judiciary? When HMRC don't like the outcome simply delay then appeal. The Rangers case is different in that HMRC wanted a quick win to issue thousands of follower notices in addition to APNs. With APNs, why bother to rush? As my advisor said, once you pay an APN you'll never see the money ever again. Don't take out a loan against getting it back as you'll be dead before HMRC concede on any of it, rightly or wrongly. Any losses in court will be contested in a dragged out fashion. Maybe they'll retrospectively change the law again to dismiss cases that HMRC lose.
All very shoddy.

[lastManStanding]

It will be an interesting call for HMRC on whether they appeal the UTT decision. They only have two weeks or so to seek permission to appeal. They might not appeal and they might not get permission. I'm also sure that there will be a number of Judicial reviews on APN with respect to whether the Rangers UTT decision is relevant to other EBT's and RT's. The brilliant Mr Thornhill will be kept busy, as will HMRC's highly paid silks.

I doubt there will be any Judicial reviews on APN wrt Rangers, as APNs are initially going to be applied to DOTAS registered schemes. These schemes declared up front that they were legally avoiding tax by various mechanisms and the new legislation says this is enough to request an APN.

As I understand it, follower notices are where "similar schemes" come into it, but I'm sure HMRC will not be shouting to loudly about Rangers being similar to any of our schemes for obvious reasons.

[flamel]

Or for any other EBT schemes by the sound of it if they wanted to save some cash:
http://www.oneegroup.com/glasgow-ran...16,49RX5,LTB,1

[fielder]

What effect does this have, if any?

A recent case has highlighted that Article 6 of the Human Rights Act had been breached by this Government:

Court rules back-to-work legislation incompatible with European law | Society | The Guardian

"the retrospective legislation interfered with the right to a fair trial"

[Rob79]

What effect does this have, if any?

A recent case has highlighted that Article 6 of the Human Rights Act had been breached by this Government:

Court rules back-to-work legislation incompatible with European law | Society | The Guardian

"the retrospective legislation interfered with the right to a fair trial"

Just be aware that HMG deny that the APN regime amounts to retrospection. They have a case in law if not in morals.

It looks like the best challenge might be based on "legitimate expectation", i.e. if you have done a scheme with a risk that tax might be higher than paid at a time when it was expected that a final legal decision would be required before the final amount of tax was known, then is it legitimate to remove that expectation?

Notoriously tricky concept. This is covered to a degree in the preamble to the various consultation documents that preceded the APN/FN material.

[handyandy]

How many DOTAS schemes were NOT on the list that HMRC published

Does anyone know how many DOTAS scheme numbers there were in total (I'm assuming the list was not contiguous)? Maybe an FOI request to understand whether the published list of those that may/will be subject to APN's is actually just a fishing expedition on 100% of registered schemes.