HMRC Consultative Document - marketed tax avoidance schemes

[DonkeyRhubarb]

If HMRC had no right to make discovery assessments, where do we stand? NTRT, is this one of points raised with the adjudicator?

It was raised with the adjudicator but most of the instances of discovery with the Montpelier scheme occurred before DOTAS came in so it's less clear cut.

[the great escape]

Finace Bill

Does anyone know exactly what will be debated regarding the draft legislation i.e. will they debate the retrospective nature of it? Everyone user should have an expectation when entering a scheme ie. you'll have to coff up if you loose in the courts and your appeal to the tribunal. However this retrospective action now changes the expectation the client would have had i.e you'll pay up front regardless with no chance of appeal if a follower case applies. With that risk, you may have opted out all together.

Can someone also add the link to the finance committee who will debate the legislation.

[banchini]

Summary pls...

DR,

I have read the thread and DOTAS PDF as suggested; still not entirely clear where we stand as this point in time.

Can you briefly summarise please ?

From what I can glean, we are captured by the change and therefore timeframes are as follows?

1. Royal Assent sometime in July

2. HMRC issue payment notice immediately thereafter for 90 days max with potential for additional month where HMRC are asked to reconsider?

3. In terms of our specific plight, MP or anyone associated can do nothing more now, its down to individual case basis now ?

Lastly can anyone advise the best way to get the most accurate calculation of liability, and a contact for HMRC ?

Thanks

[DonkeyRhubarb]

DR,

I have read the thread and DOTAS PDF as suggested; still not entirely clear where we stand as this point in time.

Can you briefly summarise please ?

From what I can glean, we are captured by the change and therefore timeframes are as follows?

1. Royal Assent sometime in July

2. HMRC issue payment notice immediately thereafter for 90 days max with potential for additional month where HMRC are asked to reconsider?

3. In terms of our specific plight, MP or anyone associated can do nothing more now, its down to individual case basis now ?

Lastly can anyone advise the best way to get the most accurate calculation of liability, and a contact for HMRC ?

Thanks

At the moment it seems likely that most, if not all, schemes involving EBTs and loans will be caught. It is not known whether the BN66 double taxation scheme, offered by the likes of Montpelier, will be affected.

We need to wait for the Finance Bill to be published, probably later this week, to see the detail of the legislation.

In the consultation document it said HMRC would publish a list of DOTAS numbers, for the affected schemes, in time for Royal Assent, so we should know by July exactly which schemes are being targeted.

Assuming the legislation is passed, I imagine it's going to take HMRC some time to issue 43,000 payment notices.

[banchini]

MP contact for calcs

DR et al

Can anyone provide the latest contact in MP who can provide accurate liability calc?

Would this not show up on government gateway also? Just wondering how to correlate any numbers MP provide with those from HMRC?

Thanks

[ads1980]

I have looked at my government gateway. if you click on the tax years in question, the amounts requested show as 'less other amounts'

[jbryce]

Consultation document and responses

Is there any requirement for the government to pay any heed whatsoever to the responses given to the consultation document?

All the responses I have seen have raised many concerns, non of which are reflected in the current proposals.

Has anyone given the proposals unequivocal support?

[Alba]

Osborne accused of handing big banks 'secret tax cut'

Just a taster of an article in today's Telegraph, check out full article on link below...................

Osborne accused of handing big banks 'secret tax cut' - Telegraph

Chancellor's pledge to introduce new bands for the bank levy mean some big banks could end up paying hundreds of millions of pounds less in tax

Britain's biggest lenders are in line for hundreds of millions in tax cuts under proposed changes to the bank levy after complaining that the burden fell disproportionately on domestic institutions.

Barclays and HSBC could see their levy charges fall by a combined total of more than £300m if the Treasury goes ahead with plans to switch to a band-based system whereby the tax of an individual bank is capped at an upper limit.

A new consultation on the changes announced in last week's Budget will begin this week, with the government suggesting a maximum charge of £375m under the draft proposals that will likely mean big UK lender paying less, while foreign lenders could see the cost of the levy rise.

However, even before the publication of the draft documents the proposals are already threatening to cause a political storm with Cathy Jamieson, Labour’s shadow financial secretary, describing the changes as a “secret tax cut” for the big banks.

“This looks like a secret tax cut for the big banks hidden in George Osborne’s Budget. The bank levy has already raised billions less than was originally promised. George Osborne must come clean and explain what impact this banding will have on revenues from the bank levy in future years,” said Ms Jamieson.

[d000hg]

I think the "they'll come after all 1-man companies" comments are rather silly. Running through a company often has tax benefits but avoiding tax is generally not the reason for opening a company. Whereas using a tax avoidance scheme is clearly done for specifically that purpose; HMRC have a thing about "aggressive avoidance" which is conveniently quite vague.

[nick4notax]

Honestly?? Dream on.....

I think the "they'll come after all 1-man companies" comments are rather silly. Running through a company often has tax benefits but avoiding tax is generally not the reason for opening a company. Whereas using a tax avoidance scheme is clearly done for specifically that purpose; HMRC have a thing about "aggressive avoidance" which is conveniently quite vague.

Do you really? Are you seriously suggesting the lure of operating as a contractor through a limited company did not include the overwhelmingly beneficial tax options? Come on, the only "silly" thing here is believing limited company operators are safer. Remember IR35, S660(a), etc? Do you think these were introduced for reasons other than clamping down on tax avoidance?

Scheme users are simply a target that attracts consolidated reaction (by the likes of me, etc) because we're facing the arrival of huge, unpayable (in my case) debts at around the same time, due to the same HMRC lies and HMRC misdeeds, persuading the same untrustworthy politicians that us simple proletarians need to be hung out to dry as a deterrent.

It is more than inevitable that HMRC will come after all 1-man personal service companies; it's already happening. I will doubtless return to trade as a limited company operator but I will not be naive wrt HMRC ambitions.