Reply to: oco and toughglaze

[lennie small]

Who can you trust? HMRC? Accountants? Trustees?

Even more cases now reported - see pumptax.com

Premier Strategies and Tenon(I of Man), and same solicitors, involved in all of these and treated as lead cases. (pre 2011) 12% Fees charged.

HMRC suggested that 'all in cahoots'. (Although FTT did not agree, and said that trusts were 'Discretionary').

Appeals dismissed on Ramsey principles. So Employer liable for PAYE/NIC ( If have money/still exist).

FTT say Tenon (now called Optimus) are trustees of 800-900 EBT's.

Would you pay back money (if you could) into a Trust to avoid 2019 Loan Charge?

Is there any morality left in Gov, HMRC, advisors?

[jbryce]

IMO

1. They are currently moving offices around the country.
2. The Rangers decision has meant their legal team need to re-group.

The Rangers decision which they pursued to the SC and considered a win.
That's the galling thing about this, they get clarity on the situation at the SC and, because they don't like its applicability in other areas, they are seeking to nullify the impact of a decision they sought.

??????

[difficulttimes]

You can still settle pre-2011 schemes. For post DR schemes this has put on hold, I would say because settling involves paying tax and NI on money the contractor never received and most people don't have access to the 'fees' that were attached to these schemes. There is a webinar being held on Friday to discuss this so I would encourage people to join that or at least register so you are kept informed of the next steps.

[BrilloPad]

Does anyone know why they don't want to settle?

No. And even if they gave a reason I doubt anyone would believe it.

They could having a cunning plan. Or totally incompetent.

[regron]

Does anyone know why they don't want to settle?

IMO

1. They are currently moving offices around the country.
2. The Rangers decision has meant their legal team need to re-group.

[EBTContractor]

HMRC are refusing to settle loan scheme cases at the moment - even where they previously offered settlement.

Does anyone know why they don't want to settle?

[BrilloPad]

Until 2019 you mean?

At the moment it looks like the "employers" would take the hit. I am sure there will be an attempt to change that.

HMRC are refusing to settle loan scheme cases at the moment - even where they previously offered settlement.

[ChimpMaster]

Indeed. HMRC lied to parliament. It can be proven. Lawyers advised BN66 crowd not to litigate as no judge would find against HMRC!

BN66ers now have to pay up (or arrange time to pay) or go bankrupt.

So loan scheme users appear to be in the clear for now. However that will change.

Until 2019 you mean?

[BrilloPad]

ftfy - I also suspect it would be a hard thing to fight against - few MPs are going to argue in support of tax avoiders avoiding tax.... After that it will depend on what the court decides but the BN66 crowd can tell you how that will work out....

Indeed. HMRC lied to parliament. It can be proven. Lawyers advised BN66 crowd not to litigate as no judge would find against HMRC!

BN66ers now have to pay up (or arrange time to pay) or go bankrupt.

So loan scheme users appear to be in the clear for now. However that will change.

[jbryce]

While I see and agree with the point of view - companies are often transitory especially when presented with large unexpected bills while individuals can't so easily escape...

...too true....

[eek]

...but perhaps they may see the incongruity in allowing large ClientCo and agencies to escape their tax liability (as defined in law and supported in the Rangers Supreme Court position) and requiring retrospective legislation to go after (arguably) foolish contractors?

At some point, it becomes difficult for ClientCo-s to argue they knew nothing about this. A quick search today shows a link between a large supplier of contractors to a major bank and one of the scheme providers.

While I see and agree with the point of view - companies are often transitory especially when presented with large unexpected bills while individuals can't so easily escape...

[jbryce]

ftfy - I also suspect it would be a hard thing to fight against - few MPs are going to argue in support of tax avoiders avoiding tax.... After that it will depend on what the court decides but the BN66 crowd can tell you how that will work out....

...but perhaps they may see the incongruity in allowing large ClientCo and agencies to escape their tax liability (as defined in law and supported in the Rangers Supreme Court position) and requiring retrospective legislation to go after (arguably) foolish contractors?

At some point, it becomes difficult for ClientCo-s to argue they knew nothing about this. A quick search today shows a link between a large supplier of contractors to a major bank and one of the scheme providers.

[eek]

Will we see retrospection here? They will definitely try to.

ftfy - I also suspect it would be a hard thing to fight against - few MPs are going to argue in support of tax avoiders avoiding tax.... After that it will depend on what the court decides but the BN66 crowd can tell you how that will work out....

[webberg]

Please can someone clarify ;

As with the Rangers case, it appears that the highest court in the land has put the liability of any Tax/NIC on the employer.

In my naivety I take it that the contractor (employee) is no longer liable for the money HMRC are chasing on the EBTs.

Is this simply too good to be true and I am naive about it all? Or as the court has ruled HMRC can only chase the Employer?

The Court said that in the Rangers case, the liability fell on the employer.

That was because the assessments at the heart of the case were Regulation 80 determinations for unpaid PAYE.

Where there are is a clear employer/employee link and circumstances similar to Rangers, I think HMRC may struggle to show a liability on a different person.

HMRC is therefore making lots of noises about how they can visit an employers PAYE liability on an employee. certainly some rules are changing to make this easier, but even those have hurdles, a key one being, "when are they effective from?".

Will we see retrospection here? Possibly.

[jbryce]

Please can someone clarify ;

As with the Rangers case, it appears that the highest court in the land has put the liability of any Tax/NIC on the employer.

In my naivety I take it that the contractor (employee) is no longer liable for the money HMRC are chasing on the EBTs.

Is this simply too good to be true and I am naive about it all? Or as the court has ruled HMRC can only chase the Employer?

F*** knows.
HMRC win one case. Hooray.
Then get HMG to change the law to allow HMRC to ignore their previous win and hold a contrary position.