Reply to: The Osborne Ultimatum

[webberg]

Thanks for the clarification. So what happens with an APN that is not taken through litigation? ie. the promoter etc. has done a runner or with this proposed legislation feels like its a waste of time and money. If the person has paid the APN amount but they don't want to settle does it just sit there?

First, the APN has absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH the settling of the enquiry or the determination of the final liability. It is just a mechanism to collect tax in advance of any such settlement or determination. It is not possible to take an APN through litigation in the way you mean here.

Second, the enquiry is into YOUR tax affairs. As such it does not matter if the promoter is no longer available or is with you every step of the way. Obviously easier if the promoter is around as they should (but sometimes don't) understad the scheme and the tax analysis. The enquiry can be settled by you agreeing with HMRC a figure, or by a Judge deciding what is or is not taxable. It is not possible for the tax to "sit there". Eventually the final amount of tax (interest and penalties) will be known and the APN will be a credit against that value.

If the APN is less than that value, you will pay some more. If the APN is excessive, you will get some back.

Whether you "want" to settle or not is irrelevant. Doing nothing will see a Judge settle a similar situation and you then get served with a Follower Notice which forces you to settle on the same or similar terms.

[difficulttimes]

Thanks for the clarification. So what happens with an APN that is not taken through litigation? ie. the promoter etc. has done a runner or with this proposed legislation feels like its a waste of time and money. If the person has paid the APN amount but they don't want to settle does it just sit there?

[webberg]

Am I right in saying that an open enquiry can only be 'closed' once the court has made a decision or you settle otherwise it will remain open forever and a day? Just thinking how this plays out with this proposed legislation and whether your case will remain 'open' forever if there is no appetite to have it heard in litigation? Is it in HMRC's interest to close enquiries or are they content with leaving them open? Apologies if this has been asked before..

An enquiry is closed when agreement is reached or imposed. It is reached between you and HMRC. It is imposed by a Court decision.

It will NOT remain open forever (may feel like that but it has to end).

HMRC cannot unilaterally decide to leave an enquiry open.

HMRC can decide to stop the enquiry in which case they will tell you. I doubt that's going to happen here.

[difficulttimes]

Open Enquiry

Am I right in saying that an open enquiry can only be 'closed' once the court has made a decision or you settle otherwise it will remain open forever and a day? Just thinking how this plays out with this proposed legislation and whether your case will remain 'open' forever if there is no appetite to have it heard in litigation? Is it in HMRC's interest to close enquiries or are they content with leaving them open? Apologies if this has been asked before..

[jbryce]

That was only for non cascade people. Anyone else who has been able to stop the interest? Anyone else supported more than cascade? As far as I know those who wanted to settle cascade was the only one able to get the loans written off and get a full and final settlement.
I would not want to pay and neither would cascade want to. It is for HMRC to make retro laws so that cascade pays like I have to.
HMRC is targeting us as we are easy to crush. Cascade is helping as much as they can without digging deep into their pockets and that is much better than some other scheme providers.

For a JR, there is no way to stop the interest, just a postponement of the APN, unless you win of course.

Cascade weren't the 'only ones'. I was a member of Sanzar, they supported through the 'Contractor Helpdesk' and got a final settlement for those that took the CLSO (very few). 'Contractor Helpdesk' was funded by an amount set aside by Sanzar/Garraway - a vested interest perhaps? Apart from AML have any of these committed to defending an FTT or UTT?

My understanding of the 2019 'sunset' proposal is having the loans written off will still require you to pay tax and my understanding of the Cascade settlement is that it leaves the IHT question open. There is no silver bullet here.

This is a long, long fight. What will make a difference is a large group that is able to negotiate en-masse with HMRC.

The BG is getting bigger. Join.

I did pick the winner in the National today and won £67.

[StrengthInNumbers]

That was only for non cascade people. Anyone else who has been able to stop the interest? Anyone else supported more than cascade? As far as I know those who wanted to settle cascade was the only one able to get the loans written off and get a full and final settlement.
I would not want to pay and neither would cascade want to. It is for HMRC to make retro laws so that cascade pays like I have to.
HMRC is targeting us as we are easy to crush. Cascade is helping as much as they can without digging deep into their pockets and that is much better than some other scheme providers.

[jbryce]

Webberg,

What you and many others fail to understand is that Cascade has been assisting individuals impacted by HMRC enquiries and the APN legislation directly for many years and have been involved in supporting over 3,500 contractors.

A great deal of work has also gone on in assisting with the explanation of the APN process, its impact, individuals options, guidance for joining a judicial review, completing witness statements, tailoring representation letters, to which if people followed the process and joined the Judicial review has resulted in APN payment being stayed, and HMRC have not been able to seize their possessions.


For you to group Cascade with those other arrangements that have ‘disappeared’ is not only wrong, but completely untrue.


Perhaps you can comment on what The Big Group has achieved so far, and how your attempts to obtain a settlement on better terms than the CLSO is going?

Cascade

If you're not Cascade then who are you?
As far as I am aware Saleos has gone down the JR route and that is still ongoing. Whilst APNs may well have been stayed, the interest continues to grow. I'm not going to argue re. the merits of the APNs and I wish you good luck and I do hope it's more than kicking the can down the road.

Saleos did offer access to his knowledge articles, but I believe there was a fee attached. Off the top of my head I can't remember how much it was.

[StrengthInNumbers]

Webberg,

What you and many others fail to understand is that Cascade has been assisting individuals impacted by HMRC enquiries and the APN legislation directly for many years and have been involved in supporting over 3,500 contractors.

All of our former contractors whom have access to the guidance and information via www.contractorupdates.com, a secure portal updated by Saleos Consultancy, the Solicitors of RPC, whom we have worked directly with to gather the thousands ...
Perhaps you can comment on what The Big Group has achieved so far, and how your attempts to obtain a settlement on better terms than the CLSO is going?

Cascade

People can say what they like but truth is that cascade stood and stayed on to support unlike many other who just ran away

[bitfrustrated]

You got some nerve coming on here!

You are not the one who the HMRC is hounding. You are not the one stressed out, getting divorced and financially ruined by being sold into payroll schemes that were assured would not end up ruining us individuals.

You had all your commission, no tax to pay on that, even affiliates got in on it, so called professional accountants sold us onto these schemes with scare stories of IR35, and look who has ended up with their neck on the proverbial block!

I'll second that.

At 3500 contractors, each staying with Cascade for ~ 3 years, earning say 100k/year, that's 1 billion turnover over their lifespan. Or 110 million in 11% fees. Rough estimate of course, could be double that, could be half. Not a bad 'scheme' for a company of such small size. So Cascade, if you're so righteous, why not open up your coffers and share that plunder with those who now need it most? And HMRC, since apparently you're listening, why not go after this cash cow?

[DotasScandal]

Webberg,

What you and many others fail to understand is that Cascade has been assisting individuals impacted by HMRC enquiries and the APN legislation directly for many years and have been involved in supporting over 3,500 contractors.

All of our former contractors whom have access to the guidance and information via www.contractorupdates.com, a secure portal updated by Saleos Consultancy, the Solicitors of RPC, whom we have worked directly with to gather the thousands of documents for the various Judicial Review proceedings that have been set up for a number of former arrangements in which we were involved. We have over 2,000 contractors in those proceedings for whom payment has been deferred.

A great deal of work has also gone on in assisting with the explanation of the APN process, its impact, individuals options, guidance for joining a judicial review, completing witness statements, tailoring representation letters, to which if people followed the process and joined the Judicial review has resulted in APN payment being stayed, and HMRC have not been able to seize their possessions.

For the past 3 years all Cascade has done is spend each day assisting with enquiry related issues. The commitment was given to contractors when they first met with us, and that commitment is now being put in place. Yes, Cascade is closed, given Cascade was only the billing service for these arrangements and not the structure itself, our closure does not change any of the support currently given to all those who received a payment from the before mentioned arrangements. I should add that substantial funds have been set aside to do that, independently held under the protection of the SRA and which would be returned to any contributors should any funds remain after the fight has been fought. Professional fees are incurred only for work done and are independently verified. Contrast that with, for example, a monthly subscription model which sees funds paid irrespective of work done and which does not allow unspent funds to be returned to those paying them.

For you to group Cascade with those other arrangements that have ‘disappeared’ is not only wrong, but completely untrue.

Anyone who has used Cascade and/or has a profile on our website may not realise it, but they are actually supported and guided by the best in the business, and are given the facts around what is happening and what their real options are and that has been the case for some years. Cascade's closure does not alter that.

Perhaps you can comment on what The Big Group has achieved so far, and how your attempts to obtain a settlement on better terms than the CLSO is going?

Cascade

Suggest we take this debate elsewhere (I see webberg has edited his post) ?
Anywhere else would be better than under the watchful eye of our "friends"

[Iliketax]

They certainly gave themselves impunity in 2011.

MPs excluded from tax avoidance legislation | Accountancy Age

First, I'm not defending MPs.

Next, that has nothing to do with the original point about MPs being exempt from the April 2019 legislation.

On your point, saying that the disguised remuneration rules do "not apply by reason of a relevant step taken by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority in relation to a member of the House of Commons" is very different from "impunity". IPSA does give loans to MPs to cover deposit for their constituency office / rental accommodation. If an employer did this it would not be within these rules but as IPSA is not an MP's employer then PAYE/NIC would be caught without this exemption. That is very different from "impunity" though.

[DotasScandal]

No. That is not right.

They certainly gave themselves impunity in 2011.

MPs excluded from tax avoidance legislation | Accountancy Age

So...how does that work in relation to "the Osborne Ultimatum" ?

[LandRover]

Webberg,

What you and many others fail to understand is that Cascade has been assisting individuals impacted by HMRC enquiries and the APN legislation directly for many years and have been involved in supporting over 3,500 contractors.

All of our former contractors whom have access to the guidance and information via www.contractorupdates.com, a secure portal updated by Saleos Consultancy, the Solicitors of RPC, whom we have worked directly with to gather the thousands of documents for the various Judicial Review proceedings that have been set up for a number of former arrangements in which we were involved. We have over 2,000 contractors in those proceedings for whom payment has been deferred.

A great deal of work has also gone on in assisting with the explanation of the APN process, its impact, individuals options, guidance for joining a judicial review, completing witness statements, tailoring representation letters, to which if people followed the process and joined the Judicial review has resulted in APN payment being stayed, and HMRC have not been able to seize their possessions.

For the past 3 years all Cascade has done is spend each day assisting with enquiry related issues. The commitment was given to contractors when they first met with us, and that commitment is now being put in place. Yes, Cascade is closed, given Cascade was only the billing service for these arrangements and not the structure itself, our closure does not change any of the support currently given to all those who received a payment from the before mentioned arrangements. I should add that substantial funds have been set aside to do that, independently held under the protection of the SRA and which would be returned to any contributors should any funds remain after the fight has been fought. Professional fees are incurred only for work done and are independently verified. Contrast that with, for example, a monthly subscription model which sees funds paid irrespective of work done and which does not allow unspent funds to be returned to those paying them.

For you to group Cascade with those other arrangements that have ‘disappeared’ is not only wrong, but completely untrue.

Anyone who has used Cascade and/or has a profile on our website may not realise it, but they are actually supported and guided by the best in the business, and are given the facts around what is happening and what their real options are and that has been the case for some years. Cascade's closure does not alter that.

Perhaps you can comment on what The Big Group has achieved so far, and how your attempts to obtain a settlement on better terms than the CLSO is going?

Cascade

You got some nerve coming on here!

You are not the one who the HMRC is hounding. You are not the one stressed out, getting divorced and financially ruined by being sold into payroll schemes that were assured would not end up ruining us individuals.

You had all your commission, no tax to pay on that, even affiliates got in on it, so called professional accountants sold us onto these schemes with scare stories of IR35, and look who has ended up with their neck on the proverbial block!

[Iliketax]

On a separate but not all together unrelated note, am I right in saying that MPs have impunity from this proposed legislation?

No. That is not right.

[CMS]

Just to clarify..

And of course, providers who filled their pockets with commission and who might (post Murray) be liable, have 3 years to disappear.

Look at Cascade?

I'm sure they will not be the last.

Webberg,

What you and many others fail to understand is that Cascade has been assisting individuals impacted by HMRC enquiries and the APN legislation directly for many years and have been involved in supporting over 3,500 contractors.

All of our former contractors whom have access to the guidance and information via www.contractorupdates.com, a secure portal updated by Saleos Consultancy, the Solicitors of RPC, whom we have worked directly with to gather the thousands of documents for the various Judicial Review proceedings that have been set up for a number of former arrangements in which we were involved. We have over 2,000 contractors in those proceedings for whom payment has been deferred.

A great deal of work has also gone on in assisting with the explanation of the APN process, its impact, individuals options, guidance for joining a judicial review, completing witness statements, tailoring representation letters, to which if people followed the process and joined the Judicial review has resulted in APN payment being stayed, and HMRC have not been able to seize their possessions.

For the past 3 years all Cascade has done is spend each day assisting with enquiry related issues. The commitment was given to contractors when they first met with us, and that commitment is now being put in place. Yes, Cascade is closed, given Cascade was only the billing service for these arrangements and not the structure itself, our closure does not change any of the support currently given to all those who received a payment from the before mentioned arrangements. I should add that substantial funds have been set aside to do that, independently held under the protection of the SRA and which would be returned to any contributors should any funds remain after the fight has been fought. Professional fees are incurred only for work done and are independently verified. Contrast that with, for example, a monthly subscription model which sees funds paid irrespective of work done and which does not allow unspent funds to be returned to those paying them.

For you to group Cascade with those other arrangements that have ‘disappeared’ is not only wrong, but completely untrue.

Anyone who has used Cascade and/or has a profile on our website may not realise it, but they are actually supported and guided by the best in the business, and are given the facts around what is happening and what their real options are and that has been the case for some years. Cascade's closure does not alter that.

Perhaps you can comment on what The Big Group has achieved so far, and how your attempts to obtain a settlement on better terms than the CLSO is going?

Cascade