PDA

View Full Version : Paying back what you haven't got.



retrodeath
23rd July 2014, 08:29
From the forum it seems I won't be the only one in this position. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has reverted to ltd company, or a permanent role after 2010 EBT clamp down. So we're earning, and paying tax. We're income to HMRC.

Time to pay seems to extend to minimal time periods. I've seen anything from a year to 5 years quoted. I did schemes for 4 years and couldn't pay the tax demand back in 5.

There's a lot of scare stories about bankrupting people but I'm inclined to agree with those that say HMRC don't want this. It doesn't make sense financially and the press will destroy them if they convert tax payers to benefit scroungers. Bankruptcy for many will also sever their financial job options, compounding the issue. I don't think anyone wants this.

HMRC want to shout from the rooftops that they've gathered all due monies. Then make it impossible for you to get it back.

It will surely make a lot if sense to give people a financial outlet. Whether they can afford to pay through their own steam or not. So offer it to anyone with afftected by FN or APN. They won't want to do this themselves because money lending is not their business, lending you the money defeats the point of swelling their coffers and their 3% interest is a snip. Time to pay is just a concession they probably had to make once. They probably hate having to do it.

I saw another post and entities positioning themselves to do exactly this. Even though it hasn't been proven in a court of law that I owe this money, I want this thing behind me and to move on to the extent that I'm willing just to pay what they say if the terms are favourable. Who wants another 6 years of wasted litigation money, feeding vultures with the end result being that I don't think HMRC will ever leave you alone. Their willingness to do whatever it takes is clear.

200k over 10 years at say 7% interest with the option to pay down early as and when is a very attractive option to me.

HMRC get their cash. One of their cronies companies gets some interest, I don't face bankruptcy, I can still work in a bank, HMRC get my tax, they don't pay me benefits, the issue is put to bed.

As it stands, they'll get nothing from me and covert me to a scroungers should they force bankruptcy.

BrilloPad
23rd July 2014, 11:35
A pity this was not posted in general where you might get more response.

No-one is sure if HMRC will be practical or not. They might just want to make an example of people.

I am preparing for bankruptcy. Hope for the best - prepare for the worst.

Mojito
23rd July 2014, 11:56
Does a bankruptcy petition not have to be approved by some external entity such as a judge? I'm sure that they would have a view on the fact that the HMRC debt on an APN is assumed in lieu of proof, and a basic tenet of UK law is innocent until proven guilty. APN's may be law and those that have the dosh will need to cough up, but when it comes to a resulting bankruptcy it does not appear that clear-cut to me.

Am I missing something....?

Rob79
23rd July 2014, 12:08
I think an APN will be a contractual debt in the eyes of a judge.

Not an expert on this but HMRC seem to think this is the case.

malvolio
23rd July 2014, 12:25
I think an APN will be a contractual debt in the eyes of a judge.

Not an expert on this but HMRC seem to think this is the case.
That's how I read it. If all else fails, you are required to pay that money first when you are in a position to do so. However, IANAL!

BrilloPad
23rd July 2014, 13:01
Does a bankruptcy petition not have to be approved by some external entity such as a judge? I'm sure that they would have a view on the fact that the HMRC debt on an APN is assumed in lieu of proof, and a basic tenet of UK law is innocent until proven guilty. APN's may be law and those that have the dosh will need to cough up, but when it comes to a resulting bankruptcy it does not appear that clear-cut to me.

Am I missing something....?

You miss nothing. I would also be wary that if a person is made bankrupt, and debt not proveable, then how does person get back into the position they had previously?


I think an APN will be a contractual debt in the eyes of a judge.

Not an expert on this but HMRC seem to think this is the case.

It depends on the judge. Get one who is looking for an honour and the right result will come out. Look at Judge Parker in the S58 case.

Mojito
23rd July 2014, 13:02
So would a charge order over assets be something more appropriate rather than bankruptcy for any sane judge presented with a bankruptcy petition? Bankruptcy is not upheld so there's no blacklisting for FS contracts, the theoretical debt is held and may be wiped out should the Tax courts do a Rangers, and the tax payer carries on earning money and paying tax on what they earn / spend etc?

I just can't see how someone can lose their living, home & suffer the domestic trauma of bankruptcy based on an as-yet unproven debt. The fact that HRMC may think it all cool may not carry much weight with a sane judge.

BrilloPad
23rd July 2014, 13:04
That's how I read it. If all else fails, you are required to pay that money first when you are in a position to do so. However, IANAL!

I would also be very careful about anything Mal(evolent) says on this subject. I still remember his thread on s58 in the closed PCG forums "The CNs are coming in and the whining has started". It gave amble opportunity for Mal and his cronies to have a jolly good laugh at those facing bankruptcy. No doubt when an S58er topped himself they got the champers out.

malvolio
23rd July 2014, 14:21
I would also be very careful about anything Mal(evolent) says on this subject. I still remember his thread on s58 in the closed PCG forums "The CNs are coming in and the whining has started". It gave amble opportunity for Mal and his cronies to have a jolly good laugh at those facing bankruptcy. No doubt when an S58er topped himself they got the champers out.
You don't half talk some bollocks. PCG forums aren't closed, they're members only and I didn't say anything on there I haven't also said on here (actually I said very little on there since s58 didn't apparently touch any PCG members and all you contributed was yet more pointless complaining rather than trying to get help. Go figure). That was four years ago and I dropped out of the discussion about then when it was clear you were all only going to listen to yourselves and nobody else so there was not point trying. Some of us have moved on.

And not that I give a damn anyway what you think but FWIW I see the same blind optimism in this thread as well. You guys need to deal with the reality, not whinge about how unfair it all is. It is f***ing unfair, and should never have been allowed but it has. Deal with it..

vern19
23rd July 2014, 15:44
You don't half talk some bollocks. PCG forums aren't closed, they're members only and I didn't say anything on there I haven't also said on here (actually I said very little on there since s58 didn't apparently touch any PCG members and all you contributed was yet more pointless complaining rather than trying to get help. Go figure). That was four years ago and I dropped out of the discussion about then when it was clear you were all only going to listen to yourselves and nobody else so there was not point trying. Some of us have moved on.

And not that I give a damn anyway what you think but FWIW I see the same blind optimism in this thread as well. You guys need to deal with the reality, not whinge about how unfair it all is. It is f***ing unfair, and should never have been allowed but it has. Deal with it..

I do suspect you get a little thrill out of other peoples misfortune. It is very apparent <mod note:wink removed>

malvolio
23rd July 2014, 15:57
I do suspect you get a little thrill out of other peoples misfortune. It is very apparent :wink
You may choose to think so. I couldn't possibly comment. :igmc:

vern19
23rd July 2014, 16:15
You may choose to think so. I couldn't possibly comment. :igmc:

Says it all really....<mod note. wink removed>

varunksingh
23rd July 2014, 16:52
Anyone planning to take a loan and settle is playing in the hands of HMRC. If you promoter is no longer available then get a group made of people in your scheme and hire someone to represent the group. Even if FTT costs £400K, you only need 400 member to pay £1000 each. Definitely it depends on taking good advise and ensuring that your scheme was not run as a sham. It should be doing what it said at the time to DOTAS registration in practice.

My plan is
1) I will try and pay each APN but will not settle. Payment on account is fine.
2) Promoter is going to FTT. From what I have read until now (not being a lawyer but could be wrong) I think my promoter has a high chance of winning. Ranger decision and previous EBT decisions go a long way in giving more confidence. After FTT we will say what HMRC does. It will need approval from Tribunal to hold on to our money else will have to refund.

retrodeath
23rd July 2014, 18:16
All response are welcome. I don't think there's any advantage to settling until you get a final correct bill so I'm waiting for that. It may not come for another couple of years by which time I'll be in a better position.

The earlier they bill me the less chance they have.

I'm finding the whole end game quite refreshing. It's like having a school bully continually threatening to get you after school. Eventually you just call him out to get it over and done with and you've built it up in your mind so much that he can't hit as hard as your worst fears anyway.

jn3
24th July 2014, 01:47
Anyone planning to take a loan and settle is playing in the hands of HMRC. If you promoter is no longer available then get a group made of people in your scheme and hire someone to represent the group. Even if FTT costs £400K, you only need 400 member to pay £1000 each. Definitely it depends on taking good advise and ensuring that your scheme was not run as a sham. It should be doing what it said at the time to DOTAS registration in practice.

My plan is
1) I will try and pay each APN but will not settle. Payment on account is fine.
2) Promoter is going to FTT. From what I have read until now (not being a lawyer but could be wrong) I think my promoter has a high chance of winning. Ranger decision and previous EBT decisions go a long way in giving more confidence. After FTT we will say what HMRC does. It will need approval from Tribunal to hold on to our money else will have to refund.

Presuming said group wins, what do you think will happen to others who are not part of said group? Is there a 'reverse follower notice' that one can apply to HMRC ie. the same scheme won at FTT hence all other scheme members should be refunded their APNs.

horrada
24th July 2014, 07:01
Presuming said group wins, what do you think will happen to others who are not part of said group? Is there a 'reverse follower notice' that one can apply to HMRC ie. the same scheme won at FTT hence all other scheme members should be refunded their APNs.

I would expect that if you are paying APN's and the scheme went to court and won, all APN's would be refunded, even if your not part of the funded group.

If you settle that would be an different matter, once settled then no refund would be returned.
Question is why would you settle if you have to pay the APN which in theory would be the same amount for settlement.

The only reason I would settle is on favourable terms for myself. But what is favourable terms if you settle on tax which is currently not owed.

Due to the Rangers case which was poorly implemented, and to date, HMRC have not won any court cases on EBTs via use of loans.

I would rather pay £1000 towards an fighting fund and have the possibility of having MY MONEY returned, than settle for the same amount.
What do you have to lose. You have already paid via APN's, so realistacally your in a win,win although its costing an £1000, but you may get all your money back :)

BrilloPad
24th July 2014, 07:11
You don't half talk some bollocks. PCG forums aren't closed, they're members only and I didn't say anything on there I haven't also said on here (actually I said very little on there since s58 didn't apparently touch any PCG members and all you contributed was yet more pointless complaining rather than trying to get help. Go figure). That was four years ago and I dropped out of the discussion about then when it was clear you were all only going to listen to yourselves and nobody else so there was not point trying. Some of us have moved on.

And not that I give a damn anyway what you think but FWIW I see the same blind optimism in this thread as well. You guys need to deal with the reality, not whinge about how unfair it all is. It is f***ing unfair, and should never have been allowed but it has. Deal with it..

Pleased you admit to having had a good laugh it the expense of people committing suicide.

All your comments were trolling - nothing constructive - so why listen to them?

I see no optimism in this thread atall. Thats be honnest - we have lost every round.

We are dealing with it - via NTRT which is now out only hope. Well, there is a better way. NVDA. But the members are too spineless and gutless for that - and in that respect I have no sympathy with those affected.

Personally I am preparing for bankruptcy. If I top myself I will take out many from HMRC along the way. Have a good laugh at that too.

malvolio
24th July 2014, 07:42
Pleased you admit to having had a good laugh it the expense of people committing suicide.
.
I suggest you either justify or remove that comment which is both untrue and deeply insulting.

davedavis
24th July 2014, 08:04
I suggest you either justify or remove that comment which is both untrue and deeply insulting.

Your comments on these threads make me believe you deserve all you get

cojak
24th July 2014, 08:18
I suggest that everyone steps away from their keyboards.

horrada
24th July 2014, 08:19
Your comments on these threads make me believe you deserve all you get

Now back to business

I would expect that if you are paying APN's and the scheme went to court and won, all APN's would be refunded, even if your not part of the funded group.

If you settle that would be an different matter, once settled then no refund would be returned.
Question is why would you settle if you have to pay the APN which in theory would be the same amount for settlement.

The only reason I would settle is on favourable terms for myself. But what is favourable terms if you settle on tax which is currently not owed.

Due to the Rangers case which was poorly implemented, and to date, HMRC have not won any court cases on EBTs via use of loans.

I would rather pay £1000 towards an fighting fund and have the possibility of having MY MONEY returned, than settle for the same amount.
What do you have to lose. You have already paid via APN's, so realistacally your in a win,win although its costing an £1000, but you may get all your money back

BrilloPad
24th July 2014, 08:25
I suggest that everyone steps away from their keyboards.

Why is that? All I have done is expose Mal for being a troll. Whats wrong with that? I have already had a congratulatory post here and a PM about this. He is allowed by you and admin to get away with spite at those who have suffered retrospective legislation, bankruptcy(potential and actual) and suicide.

I think your defence of someone who laughs at suicide is it total disgrace. Just to keep you happy I will start a thread in the bear pit. I hope you are going to allow some common sense over there. Mal deserves a perma-ban. You know, we all know it.

Go on. Prove me right about you. Delete this post. Ban me. I know I am right - and at least I can hold my head high.

Thats my last post here - see you in general.

cojak
24th July 2014, 08:27
Notice that no posts have been deleted.

I'm asking people nicely to stop the flame wars in this forum.

dezze
24th July 2014, 08:27
I would expect that if you are paying APN's and the scheme went to court and won, all APN's would be refunded, even if your not part of the funded group.

If you settle that would be an different matter, once settled then no refund would be returned.
Question is why would you settle if you have to pay the APN which in theory would be the same amount for settlement.

The only reason I would settle is on favourable terms for myself. But what is favourable terms if you settle on tax which is currently not owed.

Due to the Rangers case which was poorly implemented, and to date, HMRC have not won any court cases on EBTs via use of loans.

I would rather pay £1000 towards an fighting fund and have the possibility of having MY MONEY returned, than settle for the same amount.
What do you have to lose. You have already paid via APN's, so realistacally your in a win,win although its costing an £1000, but you may get all your money back :)

I think the main reason to settle is it would be the end of it. If the APN is paid, there is always the chance that it will drag on for years, and that's assuming you or your provider is able to fund taking HMRC to have your day in court, appeals etc. I understand that case law is with EBTs, but it is still not 100% that HMRC will be defeated and at a minimum interest would be charged. Move forward 5,6 or 10 years from now and that could be a substantial amount again so potentially not the same as a settlement.

Also, the impact on people's lives has been massive with s58, EBTs and the introduction of APN and FN. How many sleepless nights have been had by members of this forum alone? Divorce, separation, depression and in one case I know about, suicide.


I'm not saying that this is the right (and certainly not fair) thing to do, but settlement may be an option for some if it is feasible.

TheFaQQer
24th July 2014, 08:53
Mal deserves a perma-ban. You know, we all know it.

Isn't calling for a ban a bannable offence? Surely it's about time you disappeared again.

TheFaQQer
24th July 2014, 08:54
The only reason I would settle is on favourable terms for myself. But what is favourable terms if you settle on tax which is currently not owed.

Interest charges would be the only thing I could think of that might still accrue while you fight it.

horrada
24th July 2014, 09:07
I think the main reason to settle is it would be the end of it. If the APN is paid, there is always the chance that it will drag on for years, and that's assuming you or your provider is able to fund taking HMRC to have your day in court, appeals etc. I understand that case law is with EBTs, but it is still not 100% that HMRC will be defeated and at a minimum interest would be charged. Move forward 5,6 or 10 years from now and that could be a substantial amount again so potentially not the same as a settlement.

Also, the impact on people's lives has been massive with s58, EBTs and the introduction of APN and FN. How many sleepless nights have been had by members of this forum alone? Divorce, separation, depression and in one case I know about, suicide.


I'm not saying that this is the right (and certainly not fair) thing to do, but settlement may be an option for some if it is feasible.

I understand what your saying and to move on.

But once APNs are paid, why would interest accrue? To me there is no difference between settlement or APNs, just settlement you add interest now and APNs you will pay interest outstanding years down the line.

Interest will not increase any further.

Or your doing is removing opportunity to get your money back.

BrilloPad
24th July 2014, 09:15
Isn't calling for a ban a bannable offence? Surely it's about time you disappeared again.

Self referencing pointer alert.

dezze
24th July 2014, 09:19
I understand what your saying and to move on.

But once APNs are paid, why would interest accrue? To me there is no difference between settlement or APNs, just settlement you add interest now and APNs you will pay interest outstanding years down the line.

Interest will not increase any further.

Or your doing is removing opportunity to get your money back.

I think there are few of scenarios..

- you settle and no interest is charged. I don't know if this is possible nowadays.

- you settle and pay the interest that has accrued to that point. e.g. relates to a tax year 3 years ago (3 x 3%)

- you pay the APN (tax only) and in say 5 years time lose (8 x 3%)

- you pay the APN (tax only) and in say 5 years time win. You get back the APN PLUS 5 x 3% (if HMRC rate is correct)


The scenario where you pay the APN and lose down the line is worse than settling. That's my understanding anyway.

Of course, you could pay the APN and invest the money you would have paid as interest into a good investment that outstrips the HMRC interest rates. That would be better.

Rob79
24th July 2014, 10:51
[QUOTE=dezze;1970425]I think there are few of scenarios..

- you settle and no interest is charged. I don't know if this is possible nowadays.

- you settle and pay the interest that has accrued to that point. e.g. relates to a tax year 3 years ago (3 x 3%)

- you pay the APN (tax only) and in say 5 years time lose (8 x 3%)

- you pay the APN (tax only) and in say 5 years time win. You get back the APN PLUS 5 x 3% (if HMRC rate is correct)


The scenario where you pay the APN and lose down the line is worse than settling. That's my understanding anyway.

See page 46, item 2.5.1 of the HMRC Guidance of 17 July.

The APN itself will not attract interest if it is paid late. It will however attract a penalty of 5%. If it remains unpaid, further 5% penalties kick in after 5 months and 11 months.

Given that the APN is HMRC's estimate of the tax due, if it is paid it will count as a contribution towards the outstanding tax. As such interest on the amount of disputed tax taken into account in a paid APN will run only to that date. In that sense it acts pretty much like a CTD.

If the APN does not cover the final amount of tax due, further interest will be due.

If the APN exceeds the tax due, the excess is repaid with interest calculated from date of payment at a whacking 0.5%.

dezze
24th July 2014, 11:27
[QUOTE=dezze;1970425]I think there are few of scenarios..

- you settle and no interest is charged. I don't know if this is possible nowadays.

- you settle and pay the interest that has accrued to that point. e.g. relates to a tax year 3 years ago (3 x 3%)

- you pay the APN (tax only) and in say 5 years time lose (8 x 3%)

- you pay the APN (tax only) and in say 5 years time win. You get back the APN PLUS 5 x 3% (if HMRC rate is correct)


The scenario where you pay the APN and lose down the line is worse than settling. That's my understanding anyway.

See page 46, item 2.5.1 of the HMRC Guidance of 17 July.

The APN itself will not attract interest if it is paid late. It will however attract a penalty of 5%. If it remains unpaid, further 5% penalties kick in after 5 months and 11 months.

Given that the APN is HMRC's estimate of the tax due, if it is paid it will count as a contribution towards the outstanding tax. As such interest on the amount of disputed tax taken into account in a paid APN will run only to that date. In that sense it acts pretty much like a CTD.

If the APN does not cover the final amount of tax due, further interest will be due.

If the APN exceeds the tax due, the excess is repaid with interest calculated from date of payment at a whacking 0.5%.

Fair enough - I'll check back with those that were giving me info.

MrO666
24th July 2014, 11:50
All the talk of people just saying they'll go bankrupt, I don't think some of them truly grasp what that entails.

A judge won't sanction a bankruptcy order if for instance you have £100k equity in your house, or an Aston on the drive, they'll just force the sale of assets instead, and if that still isn't enough, then they may look at bankruptcy.

I think some people assume life will just continue as normal if they go bankrupt......it won't.

horrada
24th July 2014, 12:16
All the talk of people just saying they'll go bankrupt, I don't think some of them truly grasp what that entails.

A judge won't sanction a bankruptcy order if for instance you have £100k equity in your house, or an Aston on the drive, they'll just force the sale of assets instead, and if that still isn't enough, then they may look at bankruptcy.

I think some people assume life will just continue as normal if they go bankrupt......it won't.



I think most people understand that bankruptcy would involve losing assets.
Its the losing assets then working for the next three years to pay of bankruptcy order, where the courts can expect to use your earnings after necessary living expenses to pay HMRC.

I would rather claim benefits than pay high percentage of wages and be left with the same amount of money at the end.


So life would continue working hard for the next three years, but nothing to show for it or take up golf and get paid for it :)

cojak
24th July 2014, 13:13
Please remember that this is a moderated forum.

BrilloPad
24th July 2014, 13:38
All the talk of people just saying they'll go bankrupt, I don't think some of them truly grasp what that entails.

A judge won't sanction a bankruptcy order if for instance you have £100k equity in your house, or an Aston on the drive, they'll just force the sale of assets instead, and if that still isn't enough, then they may look at bankruptcy.

I think some people assume life will just continue as normal if they go bankrupt......it won't.

This is true. But you can spend all your assets. Or go abroad taking your assets with you.

If you have no money then bankruptcy is a breath of fresh air.

TheFaQQer
24th July 2014, 14:09
Please remember that this is a moderated forum.

:laugh :laugh :laugh

retrodeath
24th July 2014, 19:48
Better for all if the thread is focused. I don't see any trolling, even if posters have been trolls before.

I feel more for those that have assets and may lose then. Losing a home must be devastating. I rent but if I was bankrupted I would fail future credit checks. I'm guessing I would have to be housed if they take my creditworthiness away.

Bankruptcy has to be worse for them. It will be interesting to see what they do in my case.

LandRover
25th July 2014, 08:39
This is true. But you can spend all your assets. Or go abroad taking your assets with you.

If you have no money then bankruptcy is a breath of fresh air.

Bankruptcy does draw a line in the sand, however that may not be the end of it as if proved that your caused you bankruptcy through negligence then there is something called a bankruptcy restriction order.

Debt Questions &bull; View topic - BRO/BRUs (http://www.debtquestions.co.uk/debt_forum/viewtopic.php?t=8214)

nickersan
25th July 2014, 10:33
Bankruptcy does draw a line in the sand, however that may not be the end of it as if proved that your caused you bankruptcy through negligence then there is something called a bankruptcy restriction order.

Debt Questions &bull; View topic - BRO/BRUs (http://www.debtquestions.co.uk/debt_forum/viewtopic.php?t=8214)

I think it'd be hard to argue the anyone has acted negligently.

In my experience having worked as limited, through various schemes and through pucker umbrellas the services that I engaged with whether accountants, scheme promoters or umbrellas all came across as professional.

And with a tax system as complicated as the UKs in the days before tax planning and avoidence was head-line news, there was little differentiation I could make between these services, so I think I've could make a good argument against having been negligent in any way.

LandRover
25th July 2014, 11:29
I think it'd be hard to argue the anyone has acted negligently.

In my experience having worked as limited, through various schemes and through pucker umbrellas the services that I engaged with whether accountants, scheme promoters or umbrellas all came across as professional.

And with a tax system as complicated as the UKs in the days before tax planning and avoidence was head-line news, there was little differentiation I could make between these services, so I think I've could make a good argument against having been negligent in any way.

Agree, but if some advocate liquidating assets then they will be deemed as taking a course of action that they knew that ultimately they would file bankruptcy. There must be sufficient time periods in disposing of assets prior to bankruptcy, also running up debt like credit cards and loans prior to near to filing for bankruptcy will be enough to warrant restrictions being added to bankruptcy order.(I did some past work in this sector for a solicitors and understand a bit of it).