Reply to: MP Greg Mulholland. EBT mis-selling

[eek]

Lobbying MPs was tried with NTRT and got nowhere. HMRC run parliament.

Not quite HMRC has managed to frame this debate so that the public sees anyone who used a tax avoidance as a cheat who should have paid the correct / fair amount of tax... Hence MPs really won't vote against this part of the act for fear of annoying their constituents...

[BrilloPad]

Has this made any progress?

Lobbying MPs was tried with NTRT and got nowhere. HMRC run parliament.

[Clairol]

Agreed - I have written to my MP who has replied and has taken this wholly unreasonable litigation up with the Chief Secretary to the treasury. Suggest all those that can do the same to increase the volume.

Has this made any progress?

[UnixRat]

Agreed - I have written to my MP who has replied and has taken this wholly unreasonable litigation up with the Chief Secretary to the treasury. Suggest all those that can do the same to increase the volume.

[QCApproved]

My view is this and it is QC Approved
After the decision in Huitson and thereafter in allied cases and appeals it became clear that retrospective legislative action was likely to make it through the courts no matter how sound the "planning" or "structure".
A number of devisors exited at that point as they knew this.
Promoters continued regardless often by offering the self employed benefit trusts thereby offering something that was likely to be attacked restrospectively. In my view that's mis-selling.
It is a bandwagon that needs to roll and there is an opportunity for any politician to get behind it and raise their profile perhaps.

[BrilloPad]

Arguably PAC forced Hartnett to resign over his dealings with a well known bank.

They also managed to spectacularly confuse Ms Homer on a number of occasions.

The big difficulty is that HMRC always has the "taxpayer confidentiality" argument to hide behind.

The biggest difficulty is that when parliament have HMRC issues pointed out to them they do nothing.

[webberg]

Arguably PAC forced Hartnett to resign over his dealings with a well known bank.

They also managed to spectacularly confuse Ms Homer on a number of occasions.

The big difficulty is that HMRC always has the "taxpayer confidentiality" argument to hide behind.

[WalterWhite]

Certainly interesting and debatable.
Claims to the effect of "we are HMRC compliant" and "we are operating within the current legal framework" are some that come to mind.
If the above was true then why are we all in this situation. If legislation can retrospectively change laws then surely that affects statements that we were sold on as well, it needs to be the big picture not just part of it.

"we are HMRC compliant" and "we are operating within the current legal framework"

those were true (and I think/hope still are for the scheme I used)

With regards to retrospective legislation, playing devils advocate here, would it be fair to say that IFA's should cease selling pension and savings products because the rules could retrospectively change? Of course not.

I will admit that if my provider wasn't still around and (currently) helping their clients I may take a different view on things!

[BrilloPad]

No it doesn't.

HMRC is an agency of H M Treasury and reports to the Chancellor.

H M Treasury reports to Parliament.

HMRC is called before Public Accounts Committee regularly (and always deflects the real questions as MPs are more concerned about why the phone is not answered) and reports on certain matters there.

Only on a technicality. Parliament rarely questions HMRC on what they do and how they behave.

[woftam]

Were the EBT's actually miss-sold?

Or have HMRC just introduced new legislation that mean they can now issue contractors with a tax bill?

I used a scheme and don't feel I was miss-sold at all. Everything I was told upon joining was correct.

Certainly interesting and debatable.
Claims to the effect of "we are HMRC compliant" and "we are operating within the current legal framework" are some that come to mind.
If the above was true then why are we all in this situation. If legislation can retrospectively change laws then surely that affects statements that we were sold on as well, it needs to be the big picture not just part of it.

[webberg]

HMRC report to parliament but only when the relevant minister is asked a question or it involves a select committee.

No it doesn't.

HMRC is an agency of H M Treasury and reports to the Chancellor.

H M Treasury reports to Parliament.

HMRC is called before Public Accounts Committee regularly (and always deflects the real questions as MPs are more concerned about why the phone is not answered) and reports on certain matters there.

[WalterWhite]

Were the EBT's actually miss-sold?

Or have HMRC just introduced new legislation that mean they can now issue contractors with a tax bill?

I used a scheme and don't feel I was miss-sold at all. Everything I was told upon joining was correct.

[SueEllen]

Since parliament reports to HMRC I can't see this getting anywhere.

HMRC report to parliament but only when the relevant minister is asked a question or it involves a select committee.

[northernladyuk]

Since parliament reports to HMRC

No it doesn't.

[BrilloPad]

Since parliament reports to HMRC I can't see this getting anywhere.

NTRT tried very hard with a lobbying campaign and got nowhere.

An MPs early day motion is worth about the same as one of my early day motions after a day of eating fruit.

I hope it will be different this time.