Originally posted by Iter
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Reply to: Fiduciary receipts and search warrants
Collapse
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
- You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "Fiduciary receipts and search warrants"
Collapse
-
Originally posted by DealorNoDeal View PostHave I read it right? The claimants Anthony Ashbolt and Simon Arundell were users of the LC scheme and it was them (not the scheme promoter) who were on the receiving end of the search warrants and criminal charges?
Leave a comment:
-
And the lesson of this is...
...if you're going to use an LC mitigation strategy, make sure you're simple.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by webberg View PostThe facts as relayed in the decision published is that both parties were rather more than simple users of the scheme.
I think one is described as a "sub promoter", whatever that is.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by webberg View PostI think that we need to see beyond the "verbal slap on the wrist" for HMRC and consider whether there is an HMRC policy here that can be seen - and prepared for.
Knowing and accepting that I will be accused of scare mongering and subliminal advertising for my firm and self enrichment on the misery of others, it is nonetheless important that those who may be in scope of this demonstration of HMRC actions at least inform themselves of what may happen.
My opinion here is that this case is a public demonstration of HMRC's intention to consider attempts to avoid the loan charge via some form of structuring, recharacterisation of transactions, relabelling of payments, or other devices as close to being (or actually) unlawful.
Loan schemes have all been subject to (relatively) polite enquiry processes that have taken decades to advance not very far.
Whilst one swallow does not make a summer, perhaps this case shows that HMRC is not going to be so "polite" when it comes to loan charge avoidance (or evasion).
I would observe that the scheme in question here and the description of how enquiry responses have been claimed to have been made (not challenged by the Judge) may have played a part in HMRC going for their warrants. Perhaps a lower profile scheme may not attract such treatment?
If you have made use of any form of loan charge structuring I recommend that you gather your papers and communications with whomever organised it and perhaps ask that organiser for their view of this case.
Dont confuse HMRC being defeated on a case by case basis, which is pretty rare, with Courts curtailing their actions.
They were deemed to have operated illegally when undertaking a raid of an offshore promoter a few year back yet still operated in a similar manner in this case. And that doesnt even beginning to address the time they had access to the information they obtained and used it, from that illegal raid.
The fact these judges let them off with a verbal slap should re inforce the facts people need to know when dealing with HMRC.
Leave a comment:
-
The facts as relayed in the decision published is that both parties were rather more than simple users of the scheme.
I think one is described as a "sub promoter", whatever that is.
Leave a comment:
-
Have I read it right? The claimants Anthony Ashbolt and Simon Arundell were users of the LC scheme and it was them (not the scheme promoter) who were on the receiving end of the search warrants and criminal charges?Last edited by DealorNoDeal; 17 July 2020, 10:31.
Leave a comment:
-
I think that we need to see beyond the "verbal slap on the wrist" for HMRC and consider whether there is an HMRC policy here that can be seen - and prepared for.
Knowing and accepting that I will be accused of scare mongering and subliminal advertising for my firm and self enrichment on the misery of others, it is nonetheless important that those who may be in scope of this demonstration of HMRC actions at least inform themselves of what may happen.
My opinion here is that this case is a public demonstration of HMRC's intention to consider attempts to avoid the loan charge via some form of structuring, recharacterisation of transactions, relabelling of payments, or other devices as close to being (or actually) unlawful.
Loan schemes have all been subject to (relatively) polite enquiry processes that have taken decades to advance not very far.
Whilst one swallow does not make a summer, perhaps this case shows that HMRC is not going to be so "polite" when it comes to loan charge avoidance (or evasion).
I would observe that the scheme in question here and the description of how enquiry responses have been claimed to have been made (not challenged by the Judge) may have played a part in HMRC going for their warrants. Perhaps a lower profile scheme may not attract such treatment?
If you have made use of any form of loan charge structuring I recommend that you gather your papers and communications with whomever organised it and perhaps ask that organiser for their view of this case.
Leave a comment:
-
A verbal slap on the wrist for HMRC. Nothing will change in the way they operate.
Leave a comment:
-
Fiduciary receipts and search warrants
Ashbolt & Anor v Revenue & Customs & Anor [2020] EWHC 1588 (Admin) (18 June 2020)
The case was about whether information obtained by HMRC by use of search warrants was legally obtained and could therefore be used to advance charges of potentially unlawful behaviour in relation to a scheme devised by Baxendale-Walker LLP.
Answer is yes.
There are a number of special circumstances here and I recommend reading right to the end.
Safe to say that nobody comes away without criticism.Tags: None
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Leave a comment: