Reply to: How are you settling?

[MercladUK]

Done.

Thank you...

[NotAllThere]

Erm yes please. Sorry I just set up a poll and wasn't sure of the settings

Done.

[MercladUK]

The poll is public. Do you really want your plans known to HMRC - even if only by your handle here? I can make it a private poll (hider voter identity) if you like.

Erm yes please. Sorry I just set up a poll and wasn't sure of the settings

[jbryce]

squirrel# good to get it off your chest and still a useful insight.

dangerouswhensober# That is really interesting, i mean that.....

I know i cant pay the amount i have been sent in my settlement calculation, surely its not just me who cant afford these amounts of money because we no longer contract or have the means to?

I havent had the dreaded APN yet but i appreciate its coming at some point so if i cant pay in in the 2 years (the TTP offer) and if you read the TTP conditions it does state its only offered if the tax payer can realistically prove they can pay it !

So if a judge does not have the appetite to bankrupt someone who cant afford an APN for an amount of money that has not been proven in a court of law to be deemded owed then this is a sticking point is it not?

I for example would loose my job if made bankrupt as my employer has this is in my T&C`s because i work for large insurer. I cant repay the amount wanted, within 2 years and i am already up to my neck in personal credit,,,, where should people like me expect go from here?

any insolvency advice is most welcome

So, the advice I got regarding an APN is interesting and you may have to wait for a few sample cases to reach court. It's an enforceable debt, so you will have to pay for it. However, there is a feeling that a court may force HMRC to accept longer payment terms rather than bankruptcy because there is a chance that you may, at some point, win a case against HMRC. It would be a pyrrhic victory if you had already been bankrupted and had your life ruined. This is one of the fundamental flaws of the retrospective nature of the APNs.

[chr16v]

the above conversation might be worthy of its own thread instead of highjacking this poll thread, sorry guys.
I willl copy paste it all into a new thread.

[chr16v]

squirrel# good to get it off your chest and still a useful insight.

dangerouswhensober# That is really interesting, i mean that.....

I know i cant pay the amount i have been sent in my settlement calculation, surely its not just me who cant afford these amounts of money because we no longer contract or have the means to?

I havent had the dreaded APN yet but i appreciate its coming at some point so if i cant pay in in the 2 years (the TTP offer) and if you read the TTP conditions it does state its only offered if the tax payer can realistically prove they can pay it !

So if a judge does not have the appetite to bankrupt someone who cant afford an APN for an amount of money that has not been proven in a court of law to be deemded owed then this is a sticking point is it not?

I for example would loose my job if made bankrupt as my employer has this is in my T&C`s because i work for large insurer. I cant repay the amount wanted, within 2 years and i am already up to my neck in personal credit,,,, where should people like me expect go from here?

any insolvency advice is most welcome

[NotAllThere]

The poll is public. Do you really want your plans known to HMRC - even if only by your handle here? I can make it a private poll (hider voter identity) if you like.

[squirrel]

No idea if it'll be the same in our cases now but ...

i am totally with you on this point Zimbtar.

I have a settlement calculation that would take me 10-12 years to save up to pay off based on what i have left over after paying for the family essentials each month. I cant take more credit (a loan) because i am already maxed out according to my experian report and my mortgage is in joint names with my wife, where there is some equity.

I understand the HMRC TTP offer of up to 2 years can only be assumed if you can prove you are able to pay the money back in this time.

My question is: What happens if its clear as day that you cant afford to pay it back in 2 years?? Would i be exptected by a court to sell the family home, what type of forced action should a genuine PAYE employee expect to experience in the pursuit of this money?

It seems like soul destroying dark times in my life are on the horizon. I wonder what the full force of not being able to pay in 2 years looks like?

After a complete balls up of my own I owed HMRC £11k a few years back whilst in PAYE (moved from contracting to permie, on the wrong tax code, knew I wasn't paying enough tax but still p155ed it up the wall anyway, long story - as all mine seem to be ;-)). Didn't have the ready cash to pay them so they did a payment plan for me over the phone. They took all living expenses into account before deciding what they wanted from me. By living expenses I mean rent, bills, maintenance to ex, food. That bit was fairly reasonable to be honest although they wanted what I had taken 2 1/2 years to run up back in 12 months, but what they did not do was take any of my other creditors into account whatsoever (and I had plenty, I was in something of a mess at the time!). This then forced me on to a Debt Management Plan through the CCCS (now Stepchange). When I challenged HMRC about not looking at my other creditors they just said "we're not a bank you know". I took that one. It was my fault entirely and I went through a few years of pain on the DMP before finally paying HMRC everything and getting my debts back to serviceable amounts. I was named on a mortgage but did not live at the house, my ex and kids did, HMRC never asked me to extend the mortgage or sell the house or anything. Maybe that was because I'd agreed to the 12 month plan though.

This time, however, i don't owe them the money (in my eyes at least, particularly when we're talking about paying APNs) so my stance will change with regards bending over and taking it.

As I mention right at the start though, this was a few years ago, the APN / Settlement amounts are likely to be a lot higher than £11k, the terms will want to be longer than two years. So all in all, I realise I've not answered your question at all but I've typed all this out now so I'll post it anyway as my experience of HMRC and their "can't pay helpline"...

[dangerouswhensober]

Faith in the justice system ...

For those of us that cannot pay - (Not that I have lived a lavish lifestyle or anything frivolous) - or are not prepared to enter into an oppressive Time to Pay agreement, what then?
It really isn't a matter of choice at all.
Will a Judge really make us bankrupt to service a "debt" that is

a) over 7 years old (7 8 & 9)
b) Not chased AT ALL over that period

etc etc etc.
It is all relative I know. My "debt" would be affordable to others, but is way out of my ability to even find 20% of. Things have happened in the almost 10 years that HMRC have had. Not all positive.

Disclaimer first - I am not a lawyer - but I do have some previous experience af the bankruptcy process.

IMO - Any petition by HMRC to make an APN non-payee bankrupt would not be looked on favourably by a judge - but not for the the reasons (a) and (b) above. The real reason that judges might be favourable to defendents is because any claimed "debt" in the bankruptcy process has to be proven by the petitioner. In the case of EBT scheme members, HMRC would have a hard job proving that there was actually a debt owed, given that they haven't won an EBT case yet, so can't use any as a precedent. Net result would be stalemate for HMRC - their least desireable outcome ...

Any informed comment from a passing insolvency practitioner on this subject would be very welcome ...

[chr16v]

what if you cant pay within the 2 years HMRC offer?? what then?

For those of us that cannot pay - (Not that I have lived a lavish lifestyle or anything frivolous) - or are not prepared to enter into an oppressive Time to Pay agreement, what then?
It really isn't a matter of choice at all.
Will a Judge really make us bankrupt to service a "debt" that is

a) over 7 years old (7 8 & 9)
b) Not chased AT ALL over that period

etc etc etc.
It is all relative I know. My "debt" would be affordable to others, but is way out of my ability to even find 20% of. Things have happened in the almost 10 years that HMRC have had. Not all positive.

i am totally with you on this point Zimbtar.

I have a settlement calculation that would take me 10-12 years to save up to pay off based on what i have left over after paying for the family essentials each month. I cant take more credit (a loan) because i am already maxed out according to my experian report and my mortgage is in joint names with my wife, where there is some equity.

I understand the HMRC TTP offer of up to 2 years can only be assumed if you can prove you are able to pay the money back in this time.

My question is: What happens if its clear as day that you cant afford to pay it back in 2 years?? Would i be exptected by a court to sell the family home, what type of forced action should a genuine PAYE employee expect to experience in the pursuit of this money?

It seems like soul destroying dark times in my life are on the horizon. I wonder what the full force of not being able to pay in 2 years looks like?

[zimbtar]

The poll should probably have included "would settle at a % (of the amount HMRC think is due)"

This would cover the large percentage of people who couldn't pay the APNs that are coming as they would be wiped out. For these people, it really doesn't matter if penalties, interest or any other charge were levied as they wouldn't be able to pay them either.

Therefore the choices are much smaller:

1 - Fight to the death; or
2 - Throw your hand into the air and go bankrupt, taking all open years into consideration.

Given the above slim choices, then a few grand to fight is a no-brainer. Who knows, the court action may even be successful in the long run, it's happened before.

For those of us that cannot pay - (Not that I have lived a lavish lifestyle or anything frivolous) - or are not prepared to enter into an oppressive Time to Pay agreement, what then?
It really isn't a matter of choice at all.
Will a Judge really make us bankrupt to service a "debt" that is

a) over 7 years old (7 8 & 9)
b) Not chased AT ALL over that period

etc etc etc.
It is all relative I know. My "debt" would be affordable to others, but is way out of my ability to even find 20% of. Things have happened in the almost 10 years that HMRC have had. Not all positive.

[StrengthInNumbers]

How are you settling?

In our case can prove AUDIT TRAIL and 100% money moved from company to trust. In fact an accountant went to IoM just to ensure all this was being done.

[LandRover]

I like the thinking. However, given that HMRC want around 40% of the loan value as tax, then 28% seems like a good deal for them based on their losing EBT cases. This is still going to be far too high (even though there's a discount of 30% (ish) ) to entice a settlement. If they could reduce that to, say, 20% of the loan value, then there would be a strong incentive to settle, without prejudice, so as to draw a line in the sand.
"Without prejudice" as in not agreeing at all with the retrospective tax laws or agreeing that EBT loans are subject to any tax at all. But at 20%, then there is an incentive to cough up some cash, gives both sides certainty and would probably clear up the whole debacle in a very short space of time. This would probably boost the public purse immediately at little expense.
As has been commented on before by a well known QC, a percentage of something certain is better than nothing.

Complete agreement with what you state concerning settlement at a 20%, there would be a real incentive to draw line under whole mess, certainly for me. But I feel the push for this has to come from the government, that HMRC have no real appetite for settlement if they keep receiving the additional funding from the Treasury for resources.

[flamel]

Some acute observations.

My view is that HMRC will not move from their settlement numbers until Murray Group goes through another iteration. If that is an HMRC loss (good chance of that), then it will be a time to approach HMRC with an offer.

What would the offer be?

Back of an envelope:

Loan value less say 20% for expenses assuming it's income from a self employment.
Taxed at marginal rate less a credit for foreign tax due (but not levied) of say 10%.
Interest, yes.
Penalty, no.

So for £100 loan in 2008, that's £(100-20) x 40% = 32, less £10 foreign tax = £22. add interest of perhaps £6.

So I pay around 28% of loan value all up.

No NIC as I think there's a good argument that assessments would out of time.

How many would settle at that?

I like the thinking. However, given that HMRC want around 40% of the loan value as tax, then 28% seems like a good deal for them based on their losing EBT cases. This is still going to be far too high (even though there's a discount of 30% (ish) ) to entice a settlement. If they could reduce that to, say, 20% of the loan value, then there would be a strong incentive to settle, without prejudice, so as to draw a line in the sand.
"Without prejudice" as in not agreeing at all with the retrospective tax laws or agreeing that EBT loans are subject to any tax at all. But at 20%, then there is an incentive to cough up some cash, gives both sides certainty and would probably clear up the whole debacle in a very short space of time. This would probably boost the public purse immediately at little expense.
As has been commented on before by a well known QC, a percentage of something certain is better than nothing.

[webberg]

If they lose Murray Group and don't get leave to appeal then why would you pay them 1 penny

Because there are enough differences between the Murray Group facts and the sort of arrangements seen in many offshore loan schemes to be able to say that an adverse decision should be limited to those facts?

HMRC does this all the time. Find a case, run it, win and apply to all, lose and say it's limited.

Unfortunately in the case of contractor schemes this is very possible.

For example, In Murray, they did not attack the mechanics of the money flow. They did not argue that in reality the cash went from Rangers FC to player without passing through the various other parts of the scheme. Given that this is a soft element in many schemes and always picked upon, I suspect they looked and could make make no mischief there.

Are you confident that the parties you contracted with can PROVE an audit trail of money moving in the right way?

Are you SURE that money went from company to trust?

Bear in mind that some of the entities have disappeared and therefore this becomes a test of can you convince a judge that in a tax avoidance scheme, it is reasonable to assume that the money flowed correctly when a look at other schemes shows some shocking execution.

If that cannot be done, you have one, very important, difference already.

Don't get me wrong. If HMRC lose Murray it will put them on the back foot for perhaps a year, maybe 2. They will however bring another case. And another and another until they have their smoking gun.