Reply to: Montpelier MTM scheme

[webby653]

I sent the FOI Team a reminder on Thursday that the request was a week overdue. Radio silence since.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...tgoing-1482936

If the all party group of MPs do start asking questions then that will be harder to ignore.

[webby653]

I was going to post this in the new thread but "Reply" is throwing the error "Invalid Page URL". I've reported this to administrator.
https://forums.contractoruk.com/hmrc...-2002-3-3.html

I wonder if the impending court case mentioned is why HMRC are dragging their heels over my FOI requests.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...pa_2003_with_p
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...use_of_s6847ab

Being a bit anal, I decided to look back over several months of previous requests to see if the lack of response was unusual. And it is, most definitely. The FOI team are normally really good at responding within the 20 working day time limit. Only very rarely do they go over and, when they do, it's usually because a request is more complex or calls for a lot of information.

My requests are neither complex nor am I asking for much information. Although I can see why HMRC might find them inconvenient.

I'll add an avatar, with me falling off my chair, if they ever provide open, honest and transparent responses.

[s684]

I wrote to my MP about HMRC using the legislation retrospectively and they are going to raise it with this all party group in Parliament. If anyone can call HMRC to account, then they might be able to.

loanchargeappgdotcodotuk

[DealorNoDeal]

Perhaps we need a new FOI request to ask why they answered the other one in the way they did.

[stonehenge]

Also, authorities can answer, outside the terms of FOIA, to be helpful. I've seen even HMRC do that before.

I think eek may have hit the nail on the head.

[eek]

It seems a bit of a stretch that you and Webby don't understand what was written clearly by HMRC.
They weren't disingenuous, they actually explained why they could not answer that Freedom Of Information request question.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...23%2004297.pdf

Call me cynical but given a clear cut yes or no question the use of the FOI to avoid answering it would point me in one direction.

That HMRC would very much like to use their discretion to fix the 2001/3 arguments and collect the money.

[WTFH]

I don't know, seems a bit disingenuous, and certainly not helpful, if they know the discretion has already been widely used with years like 2001-2.

It seems a bit of a stretch that you and Webby don't understand what was written clearly by HMRC.
They weren't disingenuous, they actually explained why they could not answer that Freedom Of Information request question.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...23%2004297.pdf

[stonehenge]

No, they clearly explained that the request was not an FOI request and they would not answer it. It's nothing to do with s.684 and everything to do with what was asked and how.
As for who submitted it, that's a different question which I could ask to several usernames.

I don't know, seems a bit disingenuous, and certainly not helpful, if they know the discretion has already been widely used with years like 2001-2.

3) Will the discretion be applied retrospectively for periods before ITEPA 2003 was enacted? For instance, can HMRC disapply the PAYE rules for tax year 2001-2?

[WTFH]

It wasn't me who submitted the request, but I guess you could be right. I suppose another explanation might be that whoever drafted the response didn't know that s.684 had already been used against pre-2003 years.

No, they clearly explained that the request was not an FOI request and they would not answer it. It's nothing to do with s.684 and everything to do with what was asked and how.
As for who submitted it, that's a different question which I could ask to several usernames.

[stonehenge]

Was their response not related to the question you asked and the way you asked it?

It wasn't me who submitted the request, but I guess you could be right. I suppose another explanation might be that whoever drafted the response didn't know that s.684 had already been used against pre-2003 years.

[WTFH]

You have to laugh. In February this year, HMRC responded to an FOI about using s684 against pre-2003 years with:

"We understand your request as asking a speculative question concerning the potential application of the discretion."

It now seems they already done it 4 years ago. Speculative my arse.

Was their response not related to the question you asked and the way you asked it?

Your request is therefore invalid and cannot be considered under the FOIA.

[stonehenge]

You have to laugh. In February this year, HMRC responded to an FOI about using s684 against pre-2003 years with:

"We understand your request as asking a speculative question concerning the potential application of the discretion."

It now seems they already done it 4 years ago. Speculative my arse.

[stonehenge]

The second group, identified in this HMRC FOI response, are clearly the Montpelier users.

That'll be the no-to-retro lot (NTRT) and the Lancashire, Lee & Johnson appeal which is headed for the upper tribunal.

[DealorNoDeal]

The second group, identified in this HMRC FOI response, are clearly the Montpelier users. I had assumed they would only represent a small proportion of HMRC's use of s684 but it turns out to be nearly half!

I wonder how many of the 400 involved 2001-2 or 2002-3?

Good find.

If you don't mind me asking, why so much interest in this?

[webby653]

The second group, identified in this HMRC FOI response, are clearly the Montpelier users. I had assumed they would only represent a small proportion of HMRC's use of s684 but it turns out to be nearly half!

I wonder how many of the 400 involved 2001-2 or 2002-3?

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...0Hall.pdf.html


Our response

1. Since its use was approved by the Contentious Issues Panel (CIP) on 13 September
2017, HMRC officers in the Counter-Avoidance Directorate have exercised the discretion
under s.684(7A)(b) ITEPA 2003 in respect of approximately 900 individuals, falling within
one of two groups. One group was comprised of around 500 individuals who used
offshore arrangements where the individuals received the majority of their income in the
form of loans. The other group was comprised of around 400 individuals who used tax
avoidance schemes which sought to obtain an advantage from double taxation
arrangements. In both categories of cases, officers in Counter- Avoidance exercised the
discretion because they considered that the end clients could not reasonably have been
expected to be aware of the requirement to operate PAYE.