Reply to: HMRC consultation on penalties for scheme developers/marketers

[DotasScandal]

On the other hand...
Maybe he's inadvertently doing us all a favour. Perhaps it would be better if all public discussion ceased.
I wonder how many from HMRC are reading this as I type.

Possibly.
It's very tempting to shut down all public communications and stick to private venues.
(Hello, HMRC )
Yet it remains necessary to help folks understand how and why they're being scapegoated.
(At the risk of sounding like a broken record, and having to suffer the resident pest)

Who knows, if the deputy ambassodor to North Korea in the UK can defect to the South, then maybe just maybe even the odd HMRC bod ( ) could have a lightbulb moment.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Try this link Clicky

I've already done that but it doesn't stop threads getting constantly hijacked.

On the other hand...

Maybe he's inadvertently doing us all a favour. Perhaps it would be better if all public discussion ceased.

I wonder how many from HMRC are reading this as I type.

[Dylan]

How do you start an AtW-free thread in the "HMRC Scheme Enquiries" sub-forum?

Try this link Clicky

[webberg]

As this thread was started by JamesBrown, this thread may continue to go any which way it wishes. If you wish to return to the original point you are welcome to start a new thread webberg.

Point taken.

[cojak]

How do you start an AtW-free thread in the "HMRC Scheme Enquiries" sub-forum?

We already do, it's called moderating.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

How do you start an AtW-free thread in the "HMRC Scheme Enquiries" sub-forum?

[cojak]

As this thread was started by JamesBrown, this thread may continue to go any which way it wishes. If you wish to return to the original point you are welcome to start a new thread webberg.

[webberg]

The key phrase there and in that scheme was "artificial arrangements".

I know you will argue that the various loan agreements etc amount to "artificial arrangements" but study the facts in the case you quote and the very artificial moves required to have even a chance of working to the letter of the law and the rather more uncertain features found in many contractor "schemes" are quite different.

I also know that you and I are perhaps on different sides of the argument here and that exchanges such as these are unlikely to sway either of us.

Perhaps therefore we should allow this thread to return to the original point and if you wish to continue the rather more philosophical debate, I'm happy to do so via PM or perhaps my work email?

[AtW]

The issue that many here find particularly hard to swallow is that the law as introduced in say 2010 is now said to have applied as far back as 1999 even though we are in 2016 and nobody actually knows what Parliament intended in 2010, let alone 1999.

I'm interested in whether such a view will be supported by the judiciary.

"Mr Justice Parker rejected this.

He pointed out that the Revenue had warned the users of the tax avoidance scheme that it might be challenged, and he said the government was entitled to change tax law retrospectively to squash artificial arrangements. "

BBC News - Offshore tax avoiders face £100m tax bill

[webberg]

I think the key there is "a new law that will be in place".

The judiciary will no doubt, if called upon, be happy to do that.

The issue that many here find particularly hard to swallow is that the law as introduced in say 2010 is now said to have applied as far back as 1999 even though we are in 2016 and nobody actually knows what Parliament intended in 2010, let alone 1999.

I'm interested in whether such a view will be supported by the judiciary.

[AtW]

But surely all that new penalties regime stuff will be voted in Parliament as part of the Finance Bill or something like it, so after that - what can possibly judiciary do other than interprete that new law that will be in place?

Don't forget - nice pensions that the judges will enjoy get paid by taxation: this isn't about guarding their turf, it's about keeping the lights on in the system.

[webberg]

Well if your view is replicated in the judiciary, you may well be right.

My money is on the fact that the judiciary jealously guard their turf and would love to put one over an uppity civil service agency if they overstep the mark.

I accept that the tribunals turn logical somersaults to find for HMRC. Look at the Ingenious decision - bizarre.

I trust however that the higher courts, staffed by judges who have a vested interest in the rule of law, can see their territory being encroached upon and feel able to resist the opinions carefully fed to an uncritical press and media by HMRC who, let's face it, are winning the PR battle.

The campaign however is there to be won by the application of law and not what the typical Daily Fail reader thinks (or more accurately is brainwashed into thinking).

[AtW]

Love the eloquent way of putting your argument across... but my money would be on HMRC - especially now after Brexit collection of taxes becomes even more important then ever, tax avoidance is the super easy, popular target and I reckon HMRC could have gotten away even with heads on spikes...

[webberg]

HMRC is not above the law.

HMRC's job is to administer the law.

The law is to be applied as Parliament (not HMRC) intends. Where Parliament cannot be bothered to examine the law properly to ensure that it reflects their intention (assuming they had even formed a clear intention), it is not for HMRC to impose their view of that intention. That is the preserve of the judiciary.

When HMRC go to H M Treasury and promise that they can extract money from applying a revisionist argument based on what they think Parliament might have intended, they have arguably overstepped their authority.

That does not need a conspiracy to be proven. It simply requires the judiciary to be called upon to review the circumstances and decide where HMRC's authority actually ends. My view, one that is mirrored by a number of tax professionals, not all, but some, is that HMRC is operating outside its remit.

In terms of Huitson, last I heard the Court was considering whether to accept a late appeal. Unless that has been decided in the negative, the case remains sub judice.

[centurian]

You are right - loans schemes are unique in that they created permanent "footprint" by means of having those forever loans, so that just made it trivial to attack and achieve retro effect.

WHS - the Achilles heels of the loan schemes - is the loan itself - it leaves a permanent target for HMRC to aim their guns at.