Reply to: APNs - notifiable under DOTAS

[Wibble1]

Does anyone know the scheme reference number or numbers of the schemes that have had APN's withdrawn

Or / and the name of these schemes?

Does anyone have the details of the representation made that resulted in the scheme not being covered under DOTAS?

[x7cro]

Scheme reference number for the APN's withdrawn ?

The main grounds for HMRC issuing an APN is that a scheme was notifiable.

Don't assume that just because a promoter notified the scheme, and HMRC issued a scheme reference number (SRN), that the scheme was in fact notifiable. It may seem like a subtle distinction but HMRC are now having to withdraw 2000 Montpelier APNs because of this. We've now come across another case of this.

Some promoters probably notified to avoid any risk of the company being hit with penalties for non-compliance. Others, it seems, just didn't understand the rules. The DOTAS rules are complex, and open to interpretation, and even HMRC don't seem to fully understand them.

The likelihood of a scheme being notifiable also depends on the date when it was first made available for implementation. This determines which (if any) of the DOTAS rules apply. NB: this is not when you first used a scheme but when it was first made available to anyone.

If you think your scheme may not have been notifiable, seek professional advice.

EDIT: I decided to remove some of the technical details, above, just in case this was any benefit to HMRC.

Does anyone know the scheme reference number or numbers of the schemes that have had APN's withdrawn

[anothercontractor1]

If it was running before 18th March 2004 then it probably didn't need to be notified.

See section 319(3) of the 2004 DOTAS legislation
Finance Act 2004

The "relevant date" is defined in 308(2)
Finance Act 2004

Well my first correspondence from them was in June 2003, so maybe there's a glimmer of hope on this one!!

Thanks @DonkeyRhubarb for the helpful info.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I'm not sure - but certainly it was running during the 2003-04 tax year.

If it was running before 18th March 2004 then it probably didn't need to be notified.

See section 319(3) of the 2004 DOTAS legislation
Finance Act 2004

The "relevant date" is defined in 308(2)
Finance Act 2004

[anothercontractor1]

When did the scheme start?

I'm not sure - but certainly it was running during the 2003-04 tax year.

[BrilloPad]

I'm curious about a scheme that ended in March/April 2005, but was still notified to HMRC.

My understanding was that DOTAS didn't even come into force until 1st August 2006, so wondering whether, regardless of the details of the scheme itself, it was by definition *not* notifiable, even though it was in fact notified.

When did the scheme start?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I'm curious about a scheme that ended in March/April 2005, but was still notified to HMRC.

My understanding was that DOTAS didn't even come into force until 1st August 2006, so wondering whether, regardless of the details of the scheme itself, it was by definition *not* notifiable, even though it was in fact notified.

DOTAS was introduced in 2004.

The 1st August 2006 was when the regime was extended to cover a much wider range of schemes.

[anothercontractor1]

I'm curious about a scheme that ended in March/April 2005, but was still notified to HMRC.

My understanding was that DOTAS didn't even come into force until 1st August 2006, so wondering whether, regardless of the details of the scheme itself, it was by definition *not* notifiable, even though it was in fact notified.

[webberg]

The news from DR is welcome and I think it is the case that HMRC has realised that their APN rules are not as watertight as they thought.

The "clarification" is probably being drafted even now.

In the meantime, I am aware that some APN reps have been made on the notified/notifiable grounds in other schemes but not the outcome of any reviews. On the other hand I have evidence of some reps on these grounds being rejected.

Given that HMRC is presently refusing to accept a second rep, even where there are valid grounds, the situation will fall into the usual recipe for HMRC's inconsistent stew.

[BrilloPad]

In which case DR that seems like excellent news to me. It reinstates the status quo to that of "normal disupute" rather than "taxation by terrorism". With APNs HMRC seemed, to me, to have absolutely no motivation to actually resolve the dispute.

Only for older cases.

[ASB]

In which case DR that seems like excellent news to me. It reinstates the status quo to that of "normal disupute" rather than "taxation by terrorism". With APNs HMRC seemed, to me, to have absolutely no motivation to actually resolve the dispute.

It will be very interesting to see if the eventual response becomes some other method of extorting payment before resolution; that would simply be vindictive if more legislation comes in.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I guess it means that in order to get any money then HMRC are actually going to have to get a scheme in front of an FTT?

Yes.

[ASB]

What is the impact of a withdrawn APN?

Obviously you don't have to pay the APN; though I note the comments on CTD which were used to pay an APN - it seems wholly unreasonable to lose the protection afforded by a CTD if it were used to pay an APN which shouldn't have been issued but I suppose that is a different issue.

In terms of the dispute what impact (if any) does it have? I guess it means that in order to get any money then HMRC are actually going to have to get a scheme in front of an FTT?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Under what grounds was it appealed? Can this help users of EBT's and other schemes?

The grounds, in the Letters of Representation, were that it was not a notifiable arrangement.

Unfortunately, each scheme would need to be examined on a case by case basis because it depends on various factors, especially when it was first made available for implementation.

[WalterWhite]

Yes, the Montpelier scheme was DOTAS registered (notified). HMRC assigned it a scheme reference number, which users put on their tax returns.

However, as I said, this doesn't mean it was notifiable, and HMRC have now accepted that it wasn't.

Very interesting.

Under what grounds was it appealed? Can this help users of EBT's and other schemes?