• 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.

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.

Previously on "Hoey case lost in the Court of Appeal"

Collapse

  • DealorNoDeal
    replied
    Originally posted by dammit chloe View Post

    Perhaps understand tax enquiry windows before posting stupid analogies. Learn about the tax system before posting nonsense about evasion. Your rant betrays your pure ,and juvenile, political dogma.
    Perhaps he had a few too many this lunch time.

    Leave a comment:


  • dammit chloe
    replied
    Originally posted by agentzero View Post

    I use the analogy of police investigations. If I get identified as having clearly done a crime, due to technological developments to analyse evidence years later, that doesn't exonerate me in any way.

    People here knew they were using what were complex tax evasion schemes using offshore entities. I support the people on this forum being chased for owed monies plus interest. I simultaneously support HMRC chasing large corporations who evade tax. If we didn't have a right wing government in power now I suspect we would have acquired far better proceeds from tax, rather than accepting Amazon, Starbucks and Apple redirecting their proceeds to Luxembourg, the Cayman Islands and lots of other entities that only exist to facilitate tax evasion. It is morally right to chase the little guy and the big guy. Right now the big guy isn't being chased enough, when this should have been shut down after the 2008 financial crash.
    Perhaps understand tax enquiry windows before posting stupid analogies. Learn about the tax system before posting nonsense about evasion. Your rant betrays your pure ,and juvenile, political dogma.

    Leave a comment:


  • agentzero
    replied
    Originally posted by BolshieBastard View Post
    SNIP
    The point here isnt one of 'aggressive' tax avoidance. It is HMRC sitting on its butt for 5, 10 and even more years doing nothing when these scheme are reported to them when the SATR is submitted. That cannot be right irrespective of whether you agree with tax avoidance or not.
    SNIP
    I use the analogy of police investigations. If I get identified as having clearly done a crime, due to technological developments to analyse evidence years later, that doesn't exonerate me in any way.

    People here knew they were using what were complex tax evasion schemes using offshore entities. I support the people on this forum being chased for owed monies plus interest. I simultaneously support HMRC chasing large corporations who evade tax. If we didn't have a right wing government in power now I suspect we would have acquired far better proceeds from tax, rather than accepting Amazon, Starbucks and Apple redirecting their proceeds to Luxembourg, the Cayman Islands and lots of other entities that only exist to facilitate tax evasion. It is morally right to chase the little guy and the big guy. Right now the big guy isn't being chased enough, when this should have been shut down after the 2008 financial crash.

    Leave a comment:


  • eazy
    replied
    AccountingWeb Article / Summary :
    HMRC’s heavy-handed approach in EBT case pays off | AccountingWEB

    Leave a comment:


  • BolshieBastard
    replied
    Originally posted by Fred Bloggs View Post

    To be honest, I don't really think it's a surprise these schemes all fail. They should not be allowed to succeed. My understanding of them is that they're agressive avoidance bordering on if not actually tax evasion. No western state can allow this kind of thing to go unchecked without ending up having tax affairs similar to Greece where tax is mostly optional. It's my opinion in fact, that these cases need to be publicised more widely to demonstrate to potential scheme users the peril of not paying what's due.

    Regrettably, it seems the people organising and making a lot of money from the schemes are pretty much bullet proof which is very annoying.
    Ah yes, the 3rd category of tax Cameron and co indoctrinated the public to believe: To believe there was now not only tax evasion, illegal, tax avoidance, legal and 'aggressive' tax avoidance, illegal in the eyes of the Establishment when used by the plebs but not when members of the Establishment use the very same means.

    The point here isnt one of 'aggressive' tax avoidance. It is HMRC sitting on its butt for 5, 10 and even more years doing nothing when these scheme are reported to them when the SATR is submitted. That cannot be right irrespective of whether you agree with tax avoidance or not.

    HMRC then seem to have a loaded dice by having HMRC 'sympathetic' judges hearing the same cases they bring to court. And that's after they have dreamt up some wheeze interpretation of the legislation to back up their argument.

    It is also not right that HMRC have a bottomless pit of money to take these cases through the court system whereas the tax payer has limited funds.
    Last edited by BolshieBastard; 20 May 2022, 12:15.

    Leave a comment:


  • dammit chloe
    replied
    Originally posted by Fred Bloggs View Post

    What you really mean is that if people weren't intent on gaming the system and dodging their responsibility to pay for the public services we all have, then the schemes wouldn't exist.

    The government we all vote into power sets the level of tax they deem appropriate. I agree that present UK taxation is extortion. But that is not a justification to not pay. You want lower tax? Vote in a government that delivers lower tax.
    No. I don't mean that. That's what you think.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fred Bloggs
    replied
    Originally posted by dammit chloe View Post

    Supposedly there are more people getting caught up in schemes than ever but it is the low paid workers that are being targeted.

    As for these schemes shouldn't be allowed that is true but they wouldn't exist if those working through a Ltd weren't so unfairly persecuted by successive Govts and tax system simplified. Everything in this country is a mess that will take years to sort out but it is due to decades of complacency and self-interest and HMRC is a big offender.
    What you really mean is that if people weren't intent on gaming the system and dodging their responsibility to pay for the public services we all have, then the schemes wouldn't exist.

    The government we all vote into power sets the level of tax they deem appropriate. I agree that present UK taxation is extortion. But that is not a justification to not pay. You want lower tax? Vote in a government that delivers lower tax.

    Leave a comment:


  • dammit chloe
    replied
    Originally posted by DealorNoDeal View Post

    I think it has got harder over the years to run these schemes but I bet there are some still going even now. HMRC should have done more, years ago, to eradicate this.
    Supposedly there are more people getting caught up in schemes than ever but it is the low paid workers that are being targeted.

    As for these schemes shouldn't be allowed that is true but they wouldn't exist if those working through a Ltd weren't so unfairly persecuted by successive Govts and tax system simplified. Everything in this country is a mess that will take years to sort out but it is due to decades of complacency and self-interest and HMRC is a big offender.

    Leave a comment:


  • DealorNoDeal
    replied
    Originally posted by Fred Bloggs View Post
    Regrettably, it seems the people organising and making a lot of money from the schemes are pretty much bullet proof which is very annoying.
    I think it has got harder over the years to run these schemes but I bet there are some still going even now. HMRC should have done more, years ago, to eradicate this.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fred Bloggs
    replied
    Originally posted by DealorNoDeal View Post

    I think it would be a first. In the past decade or more, I can't recall a single case involving an avoidance scheme where the users have won.

    The 'PAYE argument', advanced by Higgs/Hoey/NTRT, was a valid one but HMRC could never allow this to succeed. So I'm not surprised they put a team of 5 QCs on the case.
    To be honest, I don't really think it's a surprise these schemes all fail. They should not be allowed to succeed. My understanding of them is that they're agressive avoidance bordering on if not actually tax evasion. No western state can allow this kind of thing to go unchecked without ending up having tax affairs similar to Greece where tax is mostly optional. It's my opinion in fact, that these cases need to be publicised more widely to demonstrate to potential scheme users the peril of not paying what's due.

    Regrettably, it seems the people organising and making a lot of money from the schemes are pretty much bullet proof which is very annoying.

    Leave a comment:


  • DealorNoDeal
    replied
    Originally posted by dammit chloe View Post
    One does wonder what some other big groups are actually up to and if they do have some magical analysis to kick down HMRC's doors.
    I think it would be a first. In the past decade or more, I can't recall a single case involving an avoidance scheme where the users have won.

    The 'PAYE argument', advanced by Higgs/Hoey/NTRT, was a valid one but HMRC could never allow this to succeed. So I'm not surprised they put a team of 5 QCs on the case.

    Leave a comment:


  • dammit chloe
    replied
    Yes, won on the basis of what some HMRC secret internal manuals say and 5 to 1 on QCs. Joke of a system. But the judge I think was ex-HMRC and I don't think she has ever found for anyone but HMRc. Again. It's a joke.

    Hopefully the appeal will be allowed and some less blinkered judge will find otherwise. Would be a nice counter balance to the RFC case.

    One does wonder what some other big groups are actually up to and if they do have some magical analysis to kick down HMRC's doors. Will we ever find out?

    Leave a comment:


  • ns1
    replied
    Originally posted by GregRickshaw View Post
    Imagine that, a Crown Court favouring a prosecution by the Crown. For those who thought the 'next big thing' (the MSCP cases) were going to be a walk in the park.... here is your reality right here.
    And, as you've sadly discovered, someone else losing a court case doesn't just impact them. It invariably hands HMRC a weapon to fire (indiscriminately) at others.

    Costelloe → CK & Boox
    Hoey → <watch this space>

    Leave a comment:


  • GregRickshaw
    replied
    Imagine that, a Crown Court favouring a prosecution by the Crown. For those who thought the 'next big thing' (the MSCP cases) were going to be a walk in the park.... here is your reality right here.

    Leave a comment:


  • PeterF
    replied
    Originally posted by eek View Post

    Quite possibly.

    Hands up who is surprised by this verdict?
    With 'Justice' Simler involved? Was only ever going to go one way. Onward to the Supreme Court, hopefully.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X