HMRC Consultative Document - marketed tax avoidance schemes

[flamel]

What's the point of any law?

The ship has sailed, the horse has bolted.... I always thought that was common sense

[varunksingh]

Carrot and Stick

I cannot find the latest guidance notes that HMRC will refund the penalties if they lose in court. I also cannot find a payment plan option for those who do not want to settle but pay the APN. I hope I am reading this wrong but may be HMRC are up to dirty tricks - Pay the APN in 90 days or face penalties. If you want a payment plan, agree to settlement.
Can someone please correct me if I have got it wrong?
Seems to HMRC does not want to go to court and want to breakdown as many people to agree settlement as possible.
Link is here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/public...front-payments
more details in the link at the end of link

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

I cannot find the latest guidance notes that HMRC will refund the penalties if they lose in court. I also cannot find a payment plan option for those who do not want to settle but pay the APN. I hope I am reading this wrong but may be HMRC are up to dirty tricks - Pay the APN in 90 days or face penalties. If you want a payment plan, agree to settlement.
Can someone please correct me if I have got it wrong?
Seems to HMRC does not want to go to court and want to breakdown as many people to agree settlement as possible.
Link is here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/public...front-payments
more details in the link at the end of link

Here you go http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/specialist/ac...-f-notices.pdf

[slatt]

I cannot find the latest guidance notes that HMRC will refund the penalties if they lose in court. I also cannot find a payment plan option for those who do not want to settle but pay the APN. I hope I am reading this wrong but may be HMRC are up to dirty tricks - Pay the APN in 90 days or face penalties. If you want a payment plan, agree to settlement.
Can someone please correct me if I have got it wrong?
Seems to HMRC does not want to go to court and want to breakdown as many people to agree settlement as possible.
Link is here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/public...front-payments
more details in the link at the end of link

If you follow the link in section 4 you'll get to the HMRC guidance document, it deals with these issues in there;

Follower Notice penalties - pages 21 to 28
APN penalties if payment plan agreed - page 47 section 2.5.4
APN penalties if payment not agreed (or paid) - pages 50 to 51

Also you can use a CTD to pay off an APN, which was a question from someone else earlier - page 46

[Rob79]

Perhaps not the best time for philosophy but in response to issues above, the DOTAS regime was first placed on the statute book in August 2004, close on 10 years ago. It was discussed beforehand with various bodies as well. Arguably IR35 is older. I seem to recall dealing with this for a large bank in 1998/99? I suspect that HMRC will regard both as fair warning.

I would agree that if the Rangers case is ultimately lost (and it has a way to go) then HMRC will seek to distinguish on facts and look for another to litigate. Setting the precedent is important, not collecting the cash.

In terms of whether a penalty incurred under the FN/APN regime being ultimately repayable in the event of success, I suspect that the only recourse will be via the Court. In the event that such a case reaches Court I would expect the advocate for the taxpayer to request either a return of any penalty paid (plus interest) or compensatory damages equal to that.

Where a penalty has been paid in a case where HMRC loses a different but similar situation, the position is much less clear. I will need to dig around on that one for an answer.

If you get an APN and can't pay it all immediately, contact HMRC DMB section to agree a plan. There is no "one size fits all" plan and all of them will be bespoke. Do not expect HMRC/DMB to publish what has been agreed with others.

[flamel]

A good summary. You left out clause 213 whereby, if HMRC loses they can apply to not repay the tax when they will appeal (taking say 20 years). Effectively, once an APN is paid that's it - other than a later bill if appropriate, adding interest and penalties

[flamel]

Sadly, bankruptcy is my only way out. Will HMRC then close all years if I amend my tax returns? This way, whether interest and penalties add up to 100% or more it is of no further consequence.

[varunksingh]

Perhaps not the best time for philosophy but in response to issues above, the DOTAS regime was first placed on the statute book in August 2004, close on 10 years ago. It was discussed beforehand with various bodies as well. Arguably IR35 is older. I seem to recall dealing with this for a large bank in 1998/99? I suspect that HMRC will regard both as fair warning.

I would agree that if the Rangers case is ultimately lost (and it has a way to go) then HMRC will seek to distinguish on facts and look for another to litigate. Setting the precedent is important, not collecting the cash.

In terms of whether a penalty incurred under the FN/APN regime being ultimately repayable in the event of success, I suspect that the only recourse will be via the Court. In the event that such a case reaches Court I would expect the advocate for the taxpayer to request either a return of any penalty paid (plus interest) or compensatory damages equal to that.

Where a penalty has been paid in a case where HMRC loses a different but similar situation, the position is much less clear. I will need to dig around on that one for an answer.

If you get an APN and can't pay it all immediately, contact HMRC DMB section to agree a plan. There is no "one size fits all" plan and all of them will be bespoke. Do not expect HMRC/DMB to publish what has been agreed with others.

EBTs are not going to work now anyways. So I don't know why setting a precedent would be important for HMRC. HMRC will no up easily but reading those decisions in Full it looks it a losing battle for HMRC at least against EBTs

[flamel]

EBTs are not going to work now anyways. So I don't know why setting a precedent would be important for HMRC. HMRC will no up easily but reading those decisions in Full it looks it a losing battle for HMRC at least against EBTs

That's the reason for APNs. That way, win or lose, HMRC will keep the money as long as they keep doing what they are really good at - dragging out cases for a very long time.

[LandRover]

That's the reason for APNs. That way, win or lose, HMRC will keep the money as long as they keep doing what they are really good at - dragging out cases for a very long time.

I can't agree they will drag out cases for years and years, infact I am aware of scheme providers are arranging litigation cases already.