HMRC wins £68m Stamp Duty Land Tax case

[Martin@AS Financial]

Yes, even had some of the scheme runners trying to get us to promote it for them in exchange for commission which we swiftly rejected.

We didn't see it as ethical and also had underlying doubts that the schemes would hold any water when HMRC eventually came knocking. We didn't want t be associated with recommending this type of thing to clients for them to later be bit on the backside and point to us for recommending the scheme.

One of my clients did use the scheme after insisting he wanted to use it and arranged it all off his own back despite my warnings. I think he was just drawn in by their sales pitch about it being 'nailed on' that he wouldn't have to pay the stamp duty if HMRC didn't ask for it within a period of 8 months. I always felt they would be able to retrospectively reclaim the money no matter how much time had passed though. I'm sure the client who used this is now a little worried, hopefully he did as I advised and kept the money in a savings fund for if/when HMRC come calling for it or he could be in a spot of bother!

I know exactly what you mean - you could see from the off that there would be nothing but comebacks from it as HMRC were never going to tolerate losing huge chunks of tax.

I actually lost a client because the estate agent told them that by going through his solicitor and adviser, he could save them the stamp duty.

[Power Mortgages Ltd]

Exactly

It's died down now but it got to the stage where 50% of the clients I met were asking me about it as estate agents were using it as a selling tool to push their adviser and solicitor. Im guessing you had to deal with this as well.

Yes, even had some of the scheme runners trying to get us to promote it for them in exchange for commission which we swiftly rejected.

We didn't see it as ethical and also had underlying doubts that the schemes would hold any water when HMRC eventually came knocking. We didn't want t be associated with recommending this type of thing to clients for them to later be bit on the backside and point to us for recommending the scheme.

One of my clients did use the scheme after insisting he wanted to use it and arranged it all off his own back despite my warnings. I think he was just drawn in by their sales pitch about it being 'nailed on' that he wouldn't have to pay the stamp duty if HMRC didn't ask for it within a period of 8 months. I always felt they would be able to retrospectively reclaim the money no matter how much time had passed though. I'm sure the client who used this is now a little worried, hopefully he did as I advised and kept the money in a savings fund for if/when HMRC come calling for it or he could be in a spot of bother!

[BrilloPad]

Depends who the other side have as lawyers. The little man is much easier to beat down even in a group than a large corporation who will appeal all the way to Europe.

Montpelier had very good lawyers. And they are appealing to Europe - but that will take 10+ years. And they have hired one of the best for Europe.

Yes, I have always said that. A poster in another thread explained how the Australian tax authorities deal with these schemes in a much better way than here (in which schemes must actually be approved before they can be sold).

They need to go after the sharks (who are nothing better than fraudsters in my opinion).

+1. Why are the UK always so slow to pick up on this stuff?

[Martin@AS Financial]

Wonder if they will get this back....

Labour's 'tax dodge' on sale of HQ saved £210,000 stamp duty - UK Politics - UK - The Independent

Exactly

It's died down now but it got to the stage where 50% of the clients I met were asking me about it as estate agents were using it as a selling tool to push their adviser and solicitor. Im guessing you had to deal with this as well.

[cojak]

Surely the blame lies with the scheme promoters and their highly paid QC opinion.

Yes, I have always said that. A poster in another thread explained how the Australian tax authorities deal with these schemes in a much better way than here (in which schemes must actually be approved before they can be sold).

They need to go after the sharks (who are nothing better than fraudsters in my opinion).

[centurian]

No doubt if HMRC had lost they would have used retrospection.

Nah, they only need retrospection when they know they can't win without it

In fairness to HMRC , they appear to have done this right. They have long said these SDLT schemes were never legal in the first place - and the courts agree with them (so far).

Surely the blame lies with the scheme promoters and their highly paid QC opinion.

[Power Mortgages Ltd]

Wonder if they will get this back....

Labour's 'tax dodge' on sale of HQ saved £210,000 stamp duty - UK Politics - UK - The Independent

[SueEllen]

No doubt if HMRC had lost they would have used retrospection.

Depends who the other side have as lawyers. The little man is much easier to beat down even in a group than a large corporation who will appeal all the way to Europe.

[BrilloPad]

No doubt if HMRC had lost they would have used retrospection.

[Martin@AS Financial]

This could be a land mark case as HMRC are now systematically reviewing purchases that used the stamp duty mitigations schemes.

HMRC wins £68m Stamp Duty Land Tax case