Reply to: HMRC blunder leaves millions in unpaid business tax

[AtW]

A law firm has found some fools and a possible way of separating some more money from them. What else would you expect them to say..

Are there precedents where such well funded challenges totall failed? It's worth fighting, even if it just gets key people involved in scheme making bankrupt or wanted for arrest all around the world. Don't get mad at HMRC, get even with scheme makers. This could be the only way to get them to write off loans.

[eek]

Well, at least one law firm thinks clients should pursue those rather than HMRC. Perhaps the right answer is to pursue neither and just pay up, but after throwing lots of money at fighting HMRC it would make sense to take a poke at scheme makers and people facilitated sale of this tulip.

A law firm has found some fools and a possible way of separating some more money from them. What else would you expect them to say..

[AtW]

It's gong to be fun chasing someone in a tax haven who has disappeared....

Interpol is here to help.

HTH

[SueEllen]

Well, at least one law firm thinks clients should pursue those rather than HMRC. Perhaps the right answer is to pursue neither and just pay up, but after throwing lots of money at fighting HMRC it would make sense to take a poke at scheme makers and people facilitated sale of this tulip.

It's gong to be fun chasing someone in a tax haven who has disappeared....

[AtW]

Nope. Tax advice is at best, best endeavours - it's a big boys game with rules that match..

Well, at least one law firm thinks clients should pursue those rather than HMRC. Perhaps the right answer is to pursue neither and just pay up, but after throwing lots of money at fighting HMRC it would make sense to take a poke at scheme makers and people facilitated sale of this tulip.

[AtW]

But retrospectively changing history to suit future laws, you of all people must see how dangerous that is as a precedent

Yes it's a precedent and yes it was the only way to stop or at least slow down the wave of schemes - scheme makers should NOT be able to rely on sales pitch - "they will just close the loophole and we'll find a new one", this is no longer a certainty - those schemes should be high reward and high risk, not high reward and zero risk.

[eek]

Check this out from the article above -

"The alternative, being promoted by law firm Withers and others, is for the scheme users to sue their tax advisors. 'Schemes like Eclipse 35 were designed to create a loss and were too contrived to persuade the courts of their legitimate trading, or to escape HMRC's attention', commented Withers special counsel Tessa Lorimer. 'The mis-selling of these kind of schemes is a scandal and, rather than fighting HMRC, investors should be looking for redress from the promoters and intermediaries who sold them the schemes.'"

That's what I told the local people, but nooooo - they want to fight HMRC with unlimited resources and ability to change laws at short notice.

Some people made referrals to those schemes and pocketed money from the scheme markers - there should be paper trail for those, bank records. Professional idemnity insurance of whoever made advice should be covering it surely? Only one way to find out.

Nope. Tax advice is at best, best endeavours - it's a big boys game with rules that match..

[bobspud]

They are all repugrant. Whoever approved that in HMRC should be fired.

However, just because nobody got fired at HMRC for that does not mean that other taxdogers can do as they please. There are rotten apples in every big enough barrel.

It's not a valid defense line - "I shot the cops, Sir, because I saw on the video that some of them were doing the same to innocent person"

The person that signed it off was Liz Homer she got a dame hood and over a million in her pension so she can retire and go freelance.

Killing the schemes I agree with.

But retrospectively changing history to suit future laws, you of all people must see how dangerous that is as a precedent

[AtW]

Check this out from the article above -

"The alternative, being promoted by law firm Withers and others, is for the scheme users to sue their tax advisors. 'Schemes like Eclipse 35 were designed to create a loss and were too contrived to persuade the courts of their legitimate trading, or to escape HMRC's attention', commented Withers special counsel Tessa Lorimer. 'The mis-selling of these kind of schemes is a scandal and, rather than fighting HMRC, investors should be looking for redress from the promoters and intermediaries who sold them the schemes.'"

That's what I told the local people, but nooooo - they want to fight HMRC with unlimited resources and ability to change laws at short notice.

Some people made referrals to those schemes and pocketed money from the scheme markers - there should be paper trail for those, bank records. Professional idemnity insurance of whoever made advice should be covering it surely? Only one way to find out.

[eek]

Personally I wouldn't be worried about collateral. As long as I had a top QC's opinion that would be enough for me.

You don't need his opinion. You design the scheme in conjunction with him. so basically buy him an expensive meal and explain the plan to him as he gets drunker and the idea gets stupider.

It's how the l&r 119 scheme was created..

[eek]

I get what you're saying but I hardly blame the pleb using a scheme when they can't afford a house when the city is full of dirty money and our political class and large businesses has been taking the pee. We should sort it out, not just pick on the little guy for joining in.

If you can't afford the stakes in the game, don't join in...

[Old Greg]

I agree that it should be sorted out and it's being sorted out - HMRC is killing schemes used by the very rich too:

UK Supreme Court rejects Eclipse 35 film partnership appeal | STEP

"The scheme was one of many promoted by Future Capital Partners, all of which purported to be trading partnerships set up to sub-license films for a commercial profit. The 287 partners in Eclipse 35 borrowed large sums to buy the licensing rights for some Disney films for GBP503 million, which they then immediately sub-licensed out to other divisions of Disney. The interest on these loans created losses, for which they could then claim the special sideways tax relief introduced in 2005 to encourage investment in the British film industry. Each investor obtained GBP400,000 of tax relief for an investment of GBP173,000."

You see what they were doing - NOT investing money to create movies in UK, just as I said. This blatant abuse should be treated as tax evasion with full penalties applied without any settlements.

"Members of the scheme will now have substantially larger tax liabilities than if they never participated, because the participants remain liable to tax on the income received by the partnership. It is estimated that they will now have to repay between four and six times their original stake."



Serves them right too. Maybe next time tax "avoiders" will demand collateral from scheme "promoters" that will pay for any possible liabilities with fines and interest.

Personally I wouldn't be worried about collateral. As long as I had a top QC's opinion that would be enough for me.

[AtW]

I get what you're saying but I hardly blame the pleb using a scheme when they can't afford a house when the city is full of dirty money and our political class and large businesses has been taking the pee. We should sort it out, not just pick on the little guy for joining in.

I agree that it should be sorted out and it's being sorted out - HMRC is killing schemes used by the very rich too:

UK Supreme Court rejects Eclipse 35 film partnership appeal | STEP

"The scheme was one of many promoted by Future Capital Partners, all of which purported to be trading partnerships set up to sub-license films for a commercial profit. The 287 partners in Eclipse 35 borrowed large sums to buy the licensing rights for some Disney films for GBP503 million, which they then immediately sub-licensed out to other divisions of Disney. The interest on these loans created losses, for which they could then claim the special sideways tax relief introduced in 2005 to encourage investment in the British film industry. Each investor obtained GBP400,000 of tax relief for an investment of GBP173,000."

You see what they were doing - NOT investing money to create movies in UK, just as I said. This blatant abuse should be treated as tax evasion with full penalties applied without any settlements.

"Members of the scheme will now have substantially larger tax liabilities than if they never participated, because the participants remain liable to tax on the income received by the partnership. It is estimated that they will now have to repay between four and six times their original stake."



Serves them right too. Maybe next time tax "avoiders" will demand collateral from scheme "promoters" that will pay for any possible liabilities with fines and interest.

[fool]

They are all repugrant. Whoever approved that in HMRC should be fired.

However, just because nobody got fired at HMRC for that does not mean that other taxdogers can do as they please. There are rotten apples in every big enough barrel.

It's not a valid defense line - "I shot the cops, Sir, because I saw on the video that some of them were doing the same to innocent person"

I get what you're saying but I hardly blame the pleb using a scheme when they can't afford a house when the city is full of dirty money and our political class and large businesses has been taking the pee. We should sort it out, not just pick on the little guy for joining in.

[AtW]

How is one morally repugnant scheme different from another? HMRC knowingly sold their own property to a company that they knew to be based in a tax haven thus avoiding any stamp duty or corporation tax.

They are all repugrant. Whoever approved that in HMRC should be fired.

However, just because nobody got fired at HMRC for that does not mean that other taxdogers can do as they please. There are rotten apples in every big enough barrel.

It's not a valid defense line - "I shot the cops, Sir, because I saw on the video that some of them were doing the same to innocent person"