FT weekend Article on Setback for HMRC avoidance campaign

[EBTContractor]

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.

[OnYourBikeGB]

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.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

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.

[EBTContractor]

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.

[smalldog]

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

[Not Losing Any Sleep]

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

Yes, Tower Radio!

HMRC loses employee bonus tax appeal | AccountingWEB

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...ted-securities

Update please Hector

[Not Losing Any Sleep]

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

[webberg]

Is this is?


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

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.

[Iliketax]

Is this is?


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

Tower Radio?

[Not Losing Any Sleep]

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

[webberg]

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.

[Not Losing Any Sleep]

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.