• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "FT weekend Article on Setback for HMRC avoidance campaign"

Collapse

  • EBTContractor
    replied
    Originally posted by OnYourBikeGB View Post
    They will count uncontested APNs as a success, completely ignoring the fact that the reason they are uncontested is because they have stripped people of the ability to defend themselves.
    Or people settle because they feel they have been bullied into a situation of despair and the only way to escape HMRC's scaremongering campaign is to settle, before HMRC threatens to cut off thumbs and torture your children.

    Leave a comment:


  • OnYourBikeGB
    replied
    Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View Post
    Even though they only take the strongest cases to court, they still lose 1 in 5.
    I note the last sentence in the article. They're already preparing to blur the success line, now the emphasis will be on how many settled before going to court. They will count uncontested APNs as a success, completely ignoring the fact that the reason they are uncontested is because they have stripped people of the ability to defend themselves.

    Leave a comment:


  • DonkeyRhubarb
    replied
    Originally posted by EBTContractor View Post
    HMRC wins 80% of cherry-picked and low-hanging fruit cases.

    Then takes schemes and products they know they can win to the courts so they can advertise their statistically-fabled 80%.

    80% of people know that.
    Even though they only take the strongest cases to court, they still lose 1 in 5.

    Leave a comment:


  • EBTContractor
    replied
    Lest we forget

    HMRC wins 80% of cherry-picked and low-hanging fruit cases.

    Then takes schemes and products they know they can win to the courts so they can advertise their statistically-fabled 80%.

    80% of people know that.

    Leave a comment:


  • smalldog
    replied
    but of course Gauke would have everyone believe its a slam dunk and that HMRC always win....deary me...

    Leave a comment:


  • Not Losing Any Sleep
    replied
    https://www.gov.uk/government/public...ted-securities

    Update please Hector

    Leave a comment:


  • Not Losing Any Sleep
    replied
    Originally posted by webberg View Post
    it is indeed.

    Worth a close read because it may be that the "victory" is Pyrrhic.

    In essence the scheme was held to be in Sch 24 for tax purposes and as such the relief for the company is available to a degree based on what happens with the beneficiary. A taxable amount accruing to the beneficiary within 9 months of a year end triggers relief for the company.

    In this case I think that the appeal against the tax liability of the director was decided at FTT and not appealed to the UTT. I have to check back (busy today and gig tonight) but I suspect that he was held not taxable on receipt of whatever consideration arose from the shares and therefore no deduction.

    I've not really read it all in enough detail yet but just be aware that the structure was essentially shifting value between shares and other instruments. It was executed very well. It will be appealed.

    Interesting week for Thornhill QC. He's two;one down on the week.

    http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/TCC/2015/60.pdf

    Yes, Tower Radio!

    HMRC loses employee bonus tax appeal | AccountingWEB

    Leave a comment:


  • webberg
    replied
    Originally posted by Not Losing Any Sleep View Post
    it is indeed.

    Worth a close read because it may be that the "victory" is Pyrrhic.

    In essence the scheme was held to be in Sch 24 for tax purposes and as such the relief for the company is available to a degree based on what happens with the beneficiary. A taxable amount accruing to the beneficiary within 9 months of a year end triggers relief for the company.

    In this case I think that the appeal against the tax liability of the director was decided at FTT and not appealed to the UTT. I have to check back (busy today and gig tonight) but I suspect that he was held not taxable on receipt of whatever consideration arose from the shares and therefore no deduction.

    I've not really read it all in enough detail yet but just be aware that the structure was essentially shifting value between shares and other instruments. It was executed very well. It will be appealed.

    Interesting week for Thornhill QC. He's two;one down on the week.

    Leave a comment:


  • Iliketax
    replied
    Originally posted by Not Losing Any Sleep View Post
    Tower Radio?

    Leave a comment:


  • Not Losing Any Sleep
    replied
    Originally posted by webberg View Post
    It's a case involving a company called Scotts Atlantic.

    Scotts designed and sold film finance schemes that HMRC claims are tax avoidance. When that particular piece of manure hit the ventilation, the company decided to extract as much cash from the company as possible before putting the firm into liquidation.

    The share scheme involved setting up shares with attached option rights (and a few other bells and whistles) and gifting them to an EBT as part of a remuneration package. The argument at the company level was whether the shares assignment was a "payment".

    The FTT said yes. The UTT said no. The Court of Appeal will inevitably be involved here.

    Not yet on the website for decisions but expect it to be soon.
    Is this is?


    http://www.tribunals.gov.uk/financea...Ltd-v-HMRC.pdf

    Leave a comment:


  • webberg
    replied
    Originally posted by Not Losing Any Sleep View Post
    The FT reportted on a loss for HMRC in the UTT.

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ebff9486-b...#axzz3TDwKqirq

    Ernst Young notes that the case has an additional angle in that the UTT: "Has quashed HMRC's contention that it should ignore legislation and look at the substance of what has happened".

    Does anyone know whic case this relates to? I haven't been able to find it.
    It's a case involving a company called Scotts Atlantic.

    Scotts designed and sold film finance schemes that HMRC claims are tax avoidance. When that particular piece of manure hit the ventilation, the company decided to extract as much cash from the company as possible before putting the firm into liquidation.

    The share scheme involved setting up shares with attached option rights (and a few other bells and whistles) and gifting them to an EBT as part of a remuneration package. The argument at the company level was whether the shares assignment was a "payment".

    The FTT said yes. The UTT said no. The Court of Appeal will inevitably be involved here.

    Not yet on the website for decisions but expect it to be soon.

    Leave a comment:


  • FT weekend Article on Setback for HMRC avoidance campaign

    The FT reportted on a loss for HMRC in the UTT.

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ebff9486-b...#axzz3TDwKqirq

    Ernst Young notes that the case has an additional angle in that the UTT: "Has quashed HMRC's contention that it should ignore legislation and look at the substance of what has happened".

    Does anyone know whic case this relates to? I haven't been able to find it.

Working...
X