HMRC Consultative Document - marketed tax avoidance schemes

[cojak]

PCG should get involved because tomorrow it might come to my Ltd Company in which my Spouse is a partner. I am just trying to bring it to their attention. HMRC should confirm that this legislation preclude other areas. From what I have read I cannot see that.

I have 100% started working on the assumption that this will be passed. Save every penny and earn as much as possible. My spouse is also trying to restart working back to help us get through. We will give it our best shot and pay as much as possible. If they demand all they would claim I own over 5 years of using these schemes, we will not be able to pay but I will try and do my best to pay up.

But at the same time I don't want to back off and forget about all this once paid. I am hoping all affected will stand together and fight it. Rangers UTT hearing will finish in Mar and result should be out between Aug - Nov. Other EBT cases must also be in court and depending on how they go will clear quite a bit. Problem is all affected will still have to fight HMRC. For eg. Boyle's decision in FTT also mentioned about DOTAS disclosure in return and time limits which should apply. HMRC are out of time for 09/10 but will ignore it unless challenged in Tribunal once they have the tax collected. Thus the need for all affected to ensure they stick together for this long drawn battle to get our money back.

In my response to consultation I will stress that HMRC should be also liable for consequential costs which I will bear trying to pay this - they agree or not different story. Rest assured if the tax is due I will pay it instead of going bankrupt - it will not be easy but tax is my responsibility and I will take it up proudly. I am only against HMRC stopping me being as efficient with my tax planning as law allows. Tax is my duty but tax planning is my right as well. And based on these arguments all tax payers should be involved. What HMRC is doing just against natural justice. Retrospective law affected many in 2008, now it is going to affect many more and in future it will affect more if tax payer do not stand against it.

My guess is they'll only be interested if it involves IR35 investigations (which all I'm concerned about).

Anyway, I've thrown the question out to the wider audience.

[TheDandy]

PCG should get involved because tomorrow it might come to my Ltd Company in which my Spouse is a partner. I am just trying to bring it to their attention. HMRC should confirm that this legislation preclude other areas. From what I have read I cannot see that.

I have 100% started working on the assumption that this will be passed. Save every penny and earn as much as possible. My spouse is also trying to restart working back to help us get through. We will give it our best shot and pay as much as possible. If they demand all they would claim I own over 5 years of using these schemes, we will not be able to pay but I will try and do my best to pay up.

But at the same time I don't want to back off and forget about all this once paid. I am hoping all affected will stand together and fight it. Rangers UTT hearing will finish in Mar and result should be out between Aug - Nov. Other EBT cases must also be in court and depending on how they go will clear quite a bit. Problem is all affected will still have to fight HMRC. For eg. Boyle's decision in FTT also mentioned about DOTAS disclosure in return and time limits which should apply. HMRC are out of time for 09/10 but will ignore it unless challenged in Tribunal once they have the tax collected. Thus the need for all affected to ensure they stick together for this long drawn battle to get our money back.

In my response to consultation I will stress that HMRC should be also liable for consequential costs which I will bear trying to pay this - they agree or not different story. Rest assured if the tax is due I will pay it instead of going bankrupt - it will not be easy but tax is my responsibility and I will take it up proudly. I am only against HMRC stopping me being as efficient with my tax planning as law allows. Tax is my duty but tax planning is my right as well. And based on these arguments all tax payers should be involved. What HMRC is doing just against natural justice. Retrospective law affected many in 2008, now it is going to affect many more and in future it will affect more if tax payer do not stand against it.

Yes they should be cautious, and vigilant, as should everyone with regard to how it feasibly could impact them. That may result in a more detailed clarification in the final bill regarding its purpose, which would be no bad thing given past experiences (if we are to be educated on the 'spirit of the law' then it follows that government bodies should lead by example). However don't expect PCG's interest to extend to a blanket cull of the legislation as it proposes to apply to DOTAS.

[EveryMoveCalculated]

Hi all,
Probably a stupid question but who are NTRT?
I'm interested in contacting them....

[cojak]

Hi all,
Probably a stupid question but who are NTRT?
I'm interested in contacting them....

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...ct-2008-a.html

[malvolio]

Yes they should be cautious, and vigilant, as should everyone with regard to how it feasibly could impact them. That may result in a more detailed clarification in the final bill regarding its purpose, which would be no bad thing given past experiences (if we are to be educated on the 'spirit of the law' then it follows that government bodies should lead by example). However don't expect PCG's interest to extend to a blanket cull of the legislation as it proposes to apply to DOTAS.

PCG are taking an interest. Why wouldn't they?

[cojak]

My guess is they'll only be interested if it involves IR35 investigations (which all I'm concerned about).

Anyway, I've thrown the question out to the wider audience.

And the wider audience quickly replied "No, it doesn't".

[TheDandy]

PCG are taking an interest. Why wouldn't they?

That's what I have said isn't it? Merely saying I don't think they would be too interested in objecting to the measures to tackle schemes referred under DOTAS. Why would they?

[handyandy]

Basically from what I'm reading here and in the consultation document anyone who put a DOTAS number onto their return and have had an inquiry opened (I think adding a DOTAS number automatically triggered an inquiry under COP8) will now get a follower/failure notice (regardless of whether a test case has been through the tribunal/court system) and then a revised assessment of tax due.

Looks like the words of Sir Richard Motram are relevant here...

''We're all f*cked. I'm f*cked. You're f*cked. The whole department is f*cked. It's the biggest cock-up ever. We're all completely f*cked.'

[varunksingh]

And the wider audience quickly replied "No, it doesn't".

I hope they are correct as last thing I want is my current Limited company getting in trouble as well. Saleos gave example of multiple cases which HMRC can pick up against Spouse being partner in business and serve a "follower notice". It is not IR35 but will affect a lot of contractors (and may be others) running limited companies unless it is specifically excluded in final text of this Law. A QC or lawyer will only be able to confirm the extent to where these powers can be used.

And what is to stop HMRC deciding in 4 years time to include the Limited companies who have spouses as partners as they are doing with DOTAS.

Many much better and learned brains out here than me but people are focusing on DOTAS and EBT when reading this. In principal this will give HMRC powers which they can use in other circumstances. They should exclude other case, narrow the scope and give assurance in law to not apply this elsewhere.

2008 set a precedence for retrospective law and this is extending it and why will it stop here? Operating under a Limited company is working out to be same if not better than EBT schemes based on tax you pay but somehow at this moment we feel this is only for EBTs! Are we sure?

If we are sure it is good news as I can continue to run my limited company and pay this off - But I very much doubt that if this is passed similar rule will not come back for Limited companies because similar to EBTs by running a limited company I am not paying same PAYE as a permanent employee.

[varunksingh]

...

''We're all f*cked. I'm f*cked. You're f*cked. The whole department is f*cked. It's the biggest cock-up ever. We're all completely f*cked.'

and HMRC enjoy F*ckfests and more will be invited in due course to join. First invitation for f*ckfest start in 2008 - ask NTRT members. Myself included all thought it is not our problem until I was invited to join in as well. F*ucked we r and long will it continue!