Reply to: Paying back what you haven't got.

[LandRover]

I think it'd be hard to argue the anyone has acted negligently.

In my experience having worked as limited, through various schemes and through pucker umbrellas the services that I engaged with whether accountants, scheme promoters or umbrellas all came across as professional.

And with a tax system as complicated as the UKs in the days before tax planning and avoidence was head-line news, there was little differentiation I could make between these services, so I think I've could make a good argument against having been negligent in any way.

Agree, but if some advocate liquidating assets then they will be deemed as taking a course of action that they knew that ultimately they would file bankruptcy. There must be sufficient time periods in disposing of assets prior to bankruptcy, also running up debt like credit cards and loans prior to near to filing for bankruptcy will be enough to warrant restrictions being added to bankruptcy order.(I did some past work in this sector for a solicitors and understand a bit of it).

[nickersan]

Bankruptcy does draw a line in the sand, however that may not be the end of it as if proved that your caused you bankruptcy through negligence then there is something called a bankruptcy restriction order.

Debt Questions • View topic - BRO/BRUs

I think it'd be hard to argue the anyone has acted negligently.

In my experience having worked as limited, through various schemes and through pucker umbrellas the services that I engaged with whether accountants, scheme promoters or umbrellas all came across as professional.

And with a tax system as complicated as the UKs in the days before tax planning and avoidence was head-line news, there was little differentiation I could make between these services, so I think I've could make a good argument against having been negligent in any way.

[LandRover]

This is true. But you can spend all your assets. Or go abroad taking your assets with you.

If you have no money then bankruptcy is a breath of fresh air.

Bankruptcy does draw a line in the sand, however that may not be the end of it as if proved that your caused you bankruptcy through negligence then there is something called a bankruptcy restriction order.

Debt Questions • View topic - BRO/BRUs

[retrodeath]

Better for all if the thread is focused. I don't see any trolling, even if posters have been trolls before.

I feel more for those that have assets and may lose then. Losing a home must be devastating. I rent but if I was bankrupted I would fail future credit checks. I'm guessing I would have to be housed if they take my creditworthiness away.

Bankruptcy has to be worse for them. It will be interesting to see what they do in my case.

[TheFaQQer]

Please remember that this is a moderated forum.

[BrilloPad]

All the talk of people just saying they'll go bankrupt, I don't think some of them truly grasp what that entails.

A judge won't sanction a bankruptcy order if for instance you have £100k equity in your house, or an Aston on the drive, they'll just force the sale of assets instead, and if that still isn't enough, then they may look at bankruptcy.

I think some people assume life will just continue as normal if they go bankrupt......it won't.

This is true. But you can spend all your assets. Or go abroad taking your assets with you.

If you have no money then bankruptcy is a breath of fresh air.

[cojak]

Please remember that this is a moderated forum.

[horrada]

All the talk of people just saying they'll go bankrupt, I don't think some of them truly grasp what that entails.

A judge won't sanction a bankruptcy order if for instance you have £100k equity in your house, or an Aston on the drive, they'll just force the sale of assets instead, and if that still isn't enough, then they may look at bankruptcy.

I think some people assume life will just continue as normal if they go bankrupt......it won't.

I think most people understand that bankruptcy would involve losing assets.
Its the losing assets then working for the next three years to pay of bankruptcy order, where the courts can expect to use your earnings after necessary living expenses to pay HMRC.

I would rather claim benefits than pay high percentage of wages and be left with the same amount of money at the end.


So life would continue working hard for the next three years, but nothing to show for it or take up golf and get paid for it

[MrO666]

All the talk of people just saying they'll go bankrupt, I don't think some of them truly grasp what that entails.

A judge won't sanction a bankruptcy order if for instance you have £100k equity in your house, or an Aston on the drive, they'll just force the sale of assets instead, and if that still isn't enough, then they may look at bankruptcy.

I think some people assume life will just continue as normal if they go bankrupt......it won't.

[dezze]

[QUOTE=Rob79;1970488]

I think there are few of scenarios..

- you settle and no interest is charged. I don't know if this is possible nowadays.

- you settle and pay the interest that has accrued to that point. e.g. relates to a tax year 3 years ago (3 x 3%)

- you pay the APN (tax only) and in say 5 years time lose (8 x 3%)

- you pay the APN (tax only) and in say 5 years time win. You get back the APN PLUS 5 x 3% (if HMRC rate is correct)


The scenario where you pay the APN and lose down the line is worse than settling. That's my understanding anyway.

See page 46, item 2.5.1 of the HMRC Guidance of 17 July.

The APN itself will not attract interest if it is paid late. It will however attract a penalty of 5%. If it remains unpaid, further 5% penalties kick in after 5 months and 11 months.

Given that the APN is HMRC's estimate of the tax due, if it is paid it will count as a contribution towards the outstanding tax. As such interest on the amount of disputed tax taken into account in a paid APN will run only to that date. In that sense it acts pretty much like a CTD.

If the APN does not cover the final amount of tax due, further interest will be due.

If the APN exceeds the tax due, the excess is repaid with interest calculated from date of payment at a whacking 0.5%.

Fair enough - I'll check back with those that were giving me info.

[Rob79]

[QUOTE=dezze;1970425]I think there are few of scenarios..

- you settle and no interest is charged. I don't know if this is possible nowadays.

- you settle and pay the interest that has accrued to that point. e.g. relates to a tax year 3 years ago (3 x 3%)

- you pay the APN (tax only) and in say 5 years time lose (8 x 3%)

- you pay the APN (tax only) and in say 5 years time win. You get back the APN PLUS 5 x 3% (if HMRC rate is correct)


The scenario where you pay the APN and lose down the line is worse than settling. That's my understanding anyway.

See page 46, item 2.5.1 of the HMRC Guidance of 17 July.

The APN itself will not attract interest if it is paid late. It will however attract a penalty of 5%. If it remains unpaid, further 5% penalties kick in after 5 months and 11 months.

Given that the APN is HMRC's estimate of the tax due, if it is paid it will count as a contribution towards the outstanding tax. As such interest on the amount of disputed tax taken into account in a paid APN will run only to that date. In that sense it acts pretty much like a CTD.

If the APN does not cover the final amount of tax due, further interest will be due.

If the APN exceeds the tax due, the excess is repaid with interest calculated from date of payment at a whacking 0.5%.

[dezze]

I understand what your saying and to move on.

But once APNs are paid, why would interest accrue? To me there is no difference between settlement or APNs, just settlement you add interest now and APNs you will pay interest outstanding years down the line.

Interest will not increase any further.

Or your doing is removing opportunity to get your money back.

I think there are few of scenarios..

- you settle and no interest is charged. I don't know if this is possible nowadays.

- you settle and pay the interest that has accrued to that point. e.g. relates to a tax year 3 years ago (3 x 3%)

- you pay the APN (tax only) and in say 5 years time lose (8 x 3%)

- you pay the APN (tax only) and in say 5 years time win. You get back the APN PLUS 5 x 3% (if HMRC rate is correct)


The scenario where you pay the APN and lose down the line is worse than settling. That's my understanding anyway.

Of course, you could pay the APN and invest the money you would have paid as interest into a good investment that outstrips the HMRC interest rates. That would be better.

[BrilloPad]

Isn't calling for a ban a bannable offence? Surely it's about time you disappeared again.

Self referencing pointer alert.

[horrada]

I think the main reason to settle is it would be the end of it. If the APN is paid, there is always the chance that it will drag on for years, and that's assuming you or your provider is able to fund taking HMRC to have your day in court, appeals etc. I understand that case law is with EBTs, but it is still not 100% that HMRC will be defeated and at a minimum interest would be charged. Move forward 5,6 or 10 years from now and that could be a substantial amount again so potentially not the same as a settlement.

Also, the impact on people's lives has been massive with s58, EBTs and the introduction of APN and FN. How many sleepless nights have been had by members of this forum alone? Divorce, separation, depression and in one case I know about, suicide.


I'm not saying that this is the right (and certainly not fair) thing to do, but settlement may be an option for some if it is feasible.

I understand what your saying and to move on.

But once APNs are paid, why would interest accrue? To me there is no difference between settlement or APNs, just settlement you add interest now and APNs you will pay interest outstanding years down the line.

Interest will not increase any further.

Or your doing is removing opportunity to get your money back.

[TheFaQQer]

The only reason I would settle is on favourable terms for myself. But what is favourable terms if you settle on tax which is currently not owed.

Interest charges would be the only thing I could think of that might still accrue while you fight it.