PDA

View Full Version : Opportunity to participate in an APN judicial review



DonkeyRhubarb
30th March 2015, 19:09
Please note

Unfortunately, due to lack of interest, Matt has been forced to withdraw the opportunity to participate.

The JR itself is still going ahead but only for the schemes he was already representing.

(Posted on behalf of Matt Hall of Saleos Consultancy)

Please follow the link below to find out more about an opportunity to participate in Judicial Review ("JR") proceedings to challenge the lawfulness of Accelerated Payment Notices ("APNs").

Link removed

If you wish to benefit from those proceedings please read the note carefully and follow the instructions therein.

cojak
30th March 2015, 20:50
FYI.

DR asked for permission before posting this.

fielder
30th March 2015, 21:43
I want to first thank you for providing what I feel is lifeline for a lot of people.

Please may I ask for your opinions to what course of action would be best suited?

While I believe HMRC will overall claim that I owe within interest circa £20000 from an Edge EBT it is my understanding from following several different threads that I left the scheme before any finance bill was introduced and nothing has been proved that I was evading tax, which I wasn't so why should I settle and admit to something I have not done. With my age, job position and where I live I don't have this kind of money floating around.

The way I see it right now my options would be:

a)Attempt to get a loan from somewhere and pay the APN, understanding that at least interest (possibly inheritance tax as well) is not included

b)Put what savings I have into the APN JR review but understand that I could be asked for more money soon. If I read the letter of engagement correctly within 4.4 'Charges and expenses' if I don't future add monies where required by consultancy and requested then I will fall to the wayside and I would where? This would at least allow me to save as much as I can to reduce a loan when I need one.

c)Sell what little stake I have in this property, work with the bank to pay back the mortgage at a cost and likely sell all my furnishing and find somewhere else to live with my Fiancee (who is on a zero hour contract) within 90 days. I appreciate there are people in a worse of position than myself i'm sure.

Thank you for your points of view, this is the best hope I have of getting any advice as I cannot afford decent lawyers for a decent amount of hours, especially when we all know I have done nothing wrong!

DotasScandal
30th March 2015, 22:13
Hey Fielder,

Have you already received an APN or "precursor letter" telling you you will soon?
Practically, in your situation, it might be best to get in touch with HMRC to arrange "time to pay".
I understand that they can set up a payment plan over 1 year, possibly more, depending on individual circumstances. It is clearly stated in the legislation.

As for the core of the issue - the totally revolting aspect of APNs is that they give HMRC the right to demand payment of tax that has not been established as due. HMRC's "belief" that you owe them is enough. Therefore, whether you have effectively avoided tax or not, whether Edge's structure was legal or not - unfortunately none of this plays any part in the equation at this stage.
By sending an APN, HMRC litteraly creates an enforceable debt out of thin air, where there was none a second before.
(For all the talk about "fairness", etc, one can be forgiven for thinking the whole thing is merely a scam designed to extract money from people that took part in arrangements that HMRC doesn't have solid arguments to attack in court)

I would recommend signing up for the JR initiated by Saleos if you can, and also join with other ex-Edge users (I believe there is such a group) to participate in litigation if possible (check the Edge thread).
The more people team up, the smaller the costs are likely to be for everyone going forward. Obviously no one can tell how successful the JR will be, or what its effect will be. But HMRC is counting on us being divided and simply bending over - and we cannot make them that gift.

DonkeyRhubarb
31st March 2015, 08:06
My own personal view

If you can pay APNs you should probably consider doing so. (Not paying APNs risks penalties further down the line, possibly even if you join a JR)
If you could pay APNs, if you were given time to pay, then you should talk to HMRC about this. HMRC are able to offer time to pay (payment plans), although there are limits on the time allowed.
If you can't do either of the above, and you want to buy more time, then you could consider participating in a JR. Joining a JR should prevent HMRC enforcing APNs for quite a while. Unfortunately it's not possible to say how long this breathing space could be.

horrada
31st March 2015, 09:19
My own personal view

If you can pay APNs you should probably consider doing so. (Not paying APNs risks penalties further down the line, possibly even if you join a JR)
If you could pay APNs, if you were given time to pay, then you should talk to HMRC about this. HMRC are able to offer time to pay (payment plans), although there are limits on the time allowed.
If you can't do either of the above, and you want to buy more time, then you could consider participating in a JR. Joining a JR should prevent HMRC enforcing APNs for quite a while. Unfortunately it's not possible to say how long this breathing space could be.


My question is (or maybe best speak to Saleos) Applying for JR, is this per APN e.g. £900 every time I receive an APN over different schemes.
I currently have two APNs in the pipe line but may have another one or two later in the year.

Thanks

DonkeyRhubarb
31st March 2015, 10:04
My question is (or maybe best speak to Saleos) Applying for JR, is this per APN e.g. £900 every time I receive an APN over different schemes.
I currently have two APNs in the pipe line but may have another one or two later in the year.

Thanks

No it's £900 to join the JR, no matter how many APNs you get.

DonkeyRhubarb
31st March 2015, 10:07
Important Point

This JR is going ahead even if no-one signs up. It's not dependent on collecting lots of £900s

The JR is being paid for by schemes Matt (Saleos) already represents with 3,000 users.

The opportunity is just for others to participate in this.

flamel
31st March 2015, 10:40
My own personal view

If you can pay APNs you should probably consider doing so. (Not paying APNs risks penalties further down the line, possibly even if you join a JR)
If you could pay APNs, if you were given time to pay, then you should talk to HMRC about this. HMRC are able to offer time to pay (payment plans), although there are limits on the time allowed.
If you can't do either of the above, and you want to buy more time, then you could consider participating in a JR. Joining a JR should prevent HMRC enforcing APNs for quite a while. Unfortunately it's not possible to say how long this breathing space could be.

Are the penalties for non payment of APNs refundable if the scheme is successful in court?

DonkeyRhubarb
31st March 2015, 10:46
Are the penalties for non payment of APNs refundable if the scheme is successful in court?

I doubt it. I'm not sure if there would be any legal action you could take to try and recover penalties.

nevergiveup
31st March 2015, 10:51
I doubt it. I'm not sure if there would be any legal action you could take to try and recover penalties.

How unfair would that be? If people win their FTT/UTT case etc, how can you be penalised for something you've never owed?

The whole APN thing stinks!

lilikins1
31st March 2015, 11:20
The whole disturbed concept of the APN makes me not want to pay this Monty Python bunch regardless

DotasScandal
31st March 2015, 12:07
The whole disturbed concept of the APN makes me not want to pay this Monty Python bunch regardless

Whole APN thing would be a masterpiece of comical absurdity, if it wasn't for the human misery that is certain to follow in its wake :(
Oh, Gauke and co. promised Parliament only a few millionnaires would be inconvenienced, all right. What a bunch of deceptive, bloodsucking scumbags.

lilikins1
31st March 2015, 12:12
Whole APN thing would be a masterpiece of comical absurdity, if it wasn't for the human misery that is certain to follow in its wake :(
Oh, Gauke and co. promised Parliament only a few millionnaires would be inconvenienced, all right. What a bunch of deceptive, bloodsucking scumbags.

If they think i m going to roll over and have money they haven t proven is theirs they have another thing coming.

flamel
31st March 2015, 12:46
If they think i m going to roll over and have money they haven t proven is theirs they have another thing coming.

The only choice you'll be given is the method of rolling over. They will happily roll you over in the most uncomfortable way they can think of ...... along with a portion of boot just for good measure

DonkeyRhubarb
31st March 2015, 12:48
How unfair would that be? If people win their FTT/UTT case etc, how can you be penalised for something you've never owed?

The problem is APNs are totally separate from your tax appeal.

They create an enforceable debt in their own right, with their own penalty regime.

It sucks but that's the way it is unfortunately.

lilikins1
31st March 2015, 13:35
The problem is APNs are totally separate from your tax appeal.

They create an enforceable debt in their own right, with their own penalty regime.

It sucks but that's the way it is unfortunately.

Sorry I just don't have it in me to accept that sort of crap from a Monty Python type bunch. At least not accept it until I have absolutely no other choice.

fielder
31st March 2015, 13:55
Thank you very much to DotasScandal and all that have replied. Still worried about being asked for monies after I have joined the JR and potential state that would leave me in if I cannot afford it.

DonkeyRhubarb
31st March 2015, 14:12
Thank you very much to DotasScandal and all that have replied. Still worried about being asked for monies after I have joined the JR and potential state that would leave me in if I cannot afford it.

I understand your concern about being tapped for more money but I think that's very unlikely. Let me try and explain why.

The JR is being funded by "litigation associations" which represent 3,000 users. At the moment these 3,000 users aren't having to pay anything towards it. (It is coming out of the fees they paid to use the schemes)

These associations have only agreed to fund it up to a certain stage, basically the point where HMRC can't enforce the APNs. For the JR to go any further than this, a substantial number of the 3,000 users would have to make a contribution.

There wouldn't be any point in them asking people like you to make a further contribution because it would make no material difference unless a large number of the 3,000 also agreed to contribute.

Boobetty
31st March 2015, 15:00
I doubt it. I'm not sure if there would be any legal action you could take to try and recover penalties.

WTF? This is insane. I hope you are wrong DR!

What we need now is Malvolio and the other trolls to pop along and rub our noses in it. It's been a while. Come on fellas, where are you in our time of distress? :tumble:

regron
31st March 2015, 15:16
WTF? This is insane. I hope you are wrong DR!



As HMRC have said all along, they anticipated JR's for APN's so I am sure that's where all the remaining uncertainty and confusion comes from:

1. SO remains open, but APN's still being issued
2. Penalties will still be added to APN's whilst JR is in progress
3. People being told they will get back in touch in a 'Few' weeks to discuss time to pay. Whilst the APN 90 day ticks down
4. People waiting weeks for SO figures
5. IHT uncertainty

Ultimately they still seem to hold all the cards really and whilst the JR's will stall things (of which I am all for) the underlying issues still don't go away. Still better to fight though (if you can), than bend over !!!

DotasScandal
31st March 2015, 15:24
WTF? This is insane. I hope you are wrong DR!

It *is* insane, but I am afraid DR is correct.
There was an article a few months ago examining penalties for not paying FNs (follower notices).
Now, bear in mind that the penalites for not paying a FN are absolutely killer - 50% of the tax "in dispute" (If APNs are the A-bomb, FNs are the H-bomb in HMRC's arsenal).
The article discussed at length what would happen if the taxpayer was eventually proven right. And the answer was that, in all likelihood, the penalties would be non-recoverable even then.
HMRC have stacked all cards in their favor, and unfortunately, this is the legislation that our asleep-at-the-wheel MPs have enacted!

DotasScandal
31st March 2015, 15:29
2. Penalties will still be added to APN's whilst JR is in progress
I believe this has yet to be confirmed (though it is quite likely)


4. People waiting weeks for SO figures
Weeks? try months!


Still better to fight though (if you can), than bend over !!!
Absolutely. Matter of principles here.

fielder
31st March 2015, 15:49
[QUOTE=DotasScandal;2075974]I believe this has yet to be confirmed (though it is quite likely)

2. Penalties will still be added to APN's whilst JR is in progress

Do we know how and when this can be confirmed?

DonkeyRhubarb
31st March 2015, 16:56
[QUOTE=DotasScandal;2075974]I believe this has yet to be confirmed (though it is quite likely)

2. Penalties will still be added to APN's whilst JR is in progress

Do we know how and when this can be confirmed?

We are trying to confirm this with the QC acting for Ingenious.

The rumour appears to have been started by another QC who seems to have an axe to grind. It could be a case of sour grapes because his outspoken comments on avoidance cases have cost him in the region of £500k in potential fees.

fielder
31st March 2015, 17:11
Thank you DonkeyRhubard, will watch this space.

flamel
31st March 2015, 17:15
[QUOTE=fielder;2075981]

We are trying to confirm this with the QC acting for Ingenious.

The rumour appears to have been started by another QC who seems to have an axe to grind. It could be a case of sour grapes because his outspoken comments on avoidance cases have cost him in the region of £500k in potential fees.

The usual routine is that HMRC can't penalise you for more than the tax you (actually) owe.
I don't suppose for a minute that HMRC have thought about this

DonkeyRhubarb
31st March 2015, 18:24
[QUOTE=DonkeyRhubarb;2075997]

The usual routine is that HMRC can't penalise you for more than the tax you (actually) owe.
I don't suppose for a minute that HMRC have thought about this

The maximum penalties for not paying an APN is 15%.

5% the day after the due date

another 5% after five months

a further 5% six months after that (ie. 11 months after the due date)

StrengthInNumbers
31st March 2015, 18:31
If it comes to putting money towards most probably it will mean other jr has had some success.

flamel
31st March 2015, 18:35
If it comes to putting money towards most probably it will mean other jr has had some success.

? What ?

lilikins1
31st March 2015, 18:56
[QUOTE=fielder;2075981]

We are trying to confirm this with the QC acting for Ingenious.

The rumour appears to have been started by another QC who seems to have an axe to grind. It could be a case of sour grapes because his outspoken comments on avoidance cases have cost him in the region of £500k in potential fees.

Is this the Maughan guy that was representing Ingenious? (I wonder why he is not representing them anymore)

DonkeyRhubarb
31st March 2015, 19:06
? What ?

I think what he means is, if you ended up being asked to pay more than the initial £900, it would be because the JR actually stood some chance of success.

The £900 is just to file the papers, get it stayed behind Ingenious and apply for the court orders to prevent enforcement.

I'd be surprised if it ever got any further than this.

DonkeyRhubarb
31st March 2015, 19:07
[QUOTE=DonkeyRhubarb;2075997]

Is this the Maughan guy that was representing Ingenious? (I wonder why he is not representing them anymore)

I don't think he was ever representing Ingenious. Ingenious' barrister is David Southern QC.

webberg
31st March 2015, 19:21
[QUOTE=lilikins1;2076044]

I don't think he was ever representing Ingenious. Ingenious' barrister is David Southern QC.

I thought it was David Milne QC?

Certainly Maugham has never been in the main action

lilikins1
31st March 2015, 20:21
[QUOTE=DonkeyRhubarb;2076047]

I thought it was David Milne QC?

Certainly Maugham has never been in the main action


He could be in the 'I lose therefore I hate' line

DonkeyRhubarb
1st April 2015, 07:25
I thought it was David Milne QC?

Certainly Maugham has never been in the main action

I suppose there may be more than one QC but we had an email from Pinsent saying they were using David Southern.

webberg
1st April 2015, 08:05
I suppose there may be more than one QC but we had an email from Pinsent saying they were using David Southern.

http://www.tribunals.gov.uk/financeandtax/Documents/decisions/Ingenious-Games-LLP-Ors-v-HMRC.pdf

In this hearing it was definitely Milne.

Southern is being used in the JR I think but not the hearing which I understand might now restart in June.

DonkeyRhubarb
1st April 2015, 09:28
http://www.tribunals.gov.uk/financeandtax/Documents/decisions/Ingenious-Games-LLP-Ors-v-HMRC.pdf

In this hearing it was definitely Milne.

Southern is being used in the JR I think but not the hearing which I understand might now restart in June.

Yes I was referring to the JR, not the tax appeals.

ads1980
1st April 2015, 21:51
http://www.tribunals.gov.uk/financeandtax/Documents/decisions/Ingenious-Games-LLP-Ors-v-HMRC.pdf

In this hearing it was definitely Milne.

Southern is being used in the JR I think but not the hearing which I understand might now restart in June.

I must admit, I was intrigued to read this article but it's way over my head.

webberg
2nd April 2015, 09:11
I must admit, I was intrigued to read this article but it's way over my head.

HMRC, when they cross examined the Ingenious directors, said that the illustrations in the marketing material were manipulated in order to show that the partnership would make a profit. Those manipulations of the numbers were such that the directors must have known they were so unlikely as to amount to being a dishonest attempt to mislead. Such misleading figures were also proof that the partnerhsip could never make a profit and was therefore not trading.

The allegation that these people had been dishonest in this way was not put explicitly but rather implied. The HMRC barrister (Gammie QC) fell short of confirming that this was a line HMRC wanted to follow, but did not rule it out either.

When the hearing was paused (ran out of time) the Judge wanted the parties to summarise their positions in writing before the hearing resumed. HMRC made the implied charge of dishonest behaviour in their written submission.

Ingenious' team said that such allegations could not be made without the facts being put to the individuals so that those people could produce rebuttal evidence. (A proven charge of dishonest behaviour has implications beyond tax and natural justice says that they must have the right to reply). The produced several grounds as to why the hearing could not go ahead until this matter was resolved.

All but one of those grounds was rejected. However the Judge said that the natural justice point was enough to allow the hearing to be stayed until either HMRC made the allegation explicitly and gave the individuals time to respond or the allegation was withdrawn.

Result. Continuation of hearing now delayed until June and further written submissions to be made.

For the record, the Ingenious people strongly deny the allegations.

So we have I think 4 or 5 QC's, plus junior counsel, plus lawyers, plus Civil Service time, plus the Court time, the Judge's time and 8 or 9 empty court days to be paid for BECAUSE HMRC were at best clumsy and at worst incompetent in how they dealt with this issue.

This is also the latest distraction in getting a decision on Ingenious. The whole enquiry and hearing process has been littered with disputes on side issues and procedure. Allied with HMRC's usual pace of business, it means that a scheme (I use the word generically with no prejudice implied) which took people's investment in March 2006 is unlikely to get to a FTT decision until 10 years after. A Supreme Court decision if it goes that far, perhaps 5 years after that.

Unacceptable.

ads1980
2nd April 2015, 09:50
Thanks for summarising that for me :)

It really is crazy. And although it's a different scheme in terms of its set up, do you think the outcome of Ingenious will hold any direct impact on the EBT schemes?

webberg
2nd April 2015, 10:07
Thanks for summarising that for me :)

It really is crazy. And although it's a different scheme in terms of its set up, do you think the outcome of Ingenious will hold any direct impact on the EBT schemes?

Unlikely to be any direct read across.

The Ingenious case is about whether the partnership is trading. If yes, partners can claim a loss against other income. If no, no loss.

There are some elements of general application. The argument HMRC is groping towards here (everybody knew this was tax avoidance aided and abetted by manipulated numbers) has appeared before in Court. See the cases of Tower MCashback and Acornwood in the last couple of years.

If HMRC can show that all contractors in an EBT knew that it was tax avoidance, then the balance in a decision shifts.

I'll stop there. This thread is about APN and JR.

Happy to debate via PM.

flamel
8th April 2015, 15:47
I think what he means is, if you ended up being asked to pay more than the initial £900, it would be because the JR actually stood some chance of success.

The £900 is just to file the papers, get it stayed behind Ingenious and apply for the court orders to prevent enforcement.

I'd be surprised if it ever got any further than this.

i.e. this is £900 to get a delay in enforcement of, say, 3 - 6 months, no more than that?

DonkeyRhubarb
8th April 2015, 16:35
i.e. this is £900 to get a delay in enforcement of, say, 3 - 6 months, no more than that?

The length of time is uncertain but I would think at least 6 months.

Assuming Ingenious lose round one in the High Court, it depends on whether they appeal to the Court of Appeal.

webberg
8th April 2015, 17:10
The length of time is uncertain but I would think at least 6 months.

Assuming Ingenious lose round one in the High Court, it depends on whether they appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Given the people at Ingenious I think it would be a given that they will press this hard. I would expect this to go a long way but...

there is a danger that a loss at round one will permit collection of APN even if the case goes on.

DonkeyRhubarb
8th April 2015, 18:46
Given the people at Ingenious I think it would be a given that they will press this hard. I would expect this to go a long way but...

there is a danger that a loss at round one will permit collection of APN even if the case goes on.

Yes but there's not much point anyone worrying about imponderables.

If someone joins a JR to buy time then they just have to hope it buys a decent amount of time.

lilikins1
10th April 2015, 12:38
I don't know if this is a silly question but, if HMRC never prove that I owe them money. Will i be able to sue them for all this money they are making me spend fighting my corner?

webberg
10th April 2015, 17:53
I don't know if this is a silly question but, if HMRC never prove that I owe them money. Will i be able to sue them for all this money they are making me spend fighting my corner?

Not sue them but you could go to their Ombudsman who may award costs or compensation.

bear in mind that HMRC makes millions of mistakes every year and perhaps less than 50 awards of costs.

lilikins1
15th April 2015, 11:51
The length of time is uncertain but I would think at least 6 months.

Assuming Ingenious lose round one in the High Court, it depends on whether they appeal to the Court of Appeal.

So it would be delay in enforecement but we would have to pay the penalties once the final pay up day comes along?

DonkeyRhubarb
15th April 2015, 11:59
So it would be delay in enforecement but we would have to pay the penalties once the final pay up day comes along?

Potentially but I understand Pinsents intend to challenge the penalties issue.

If you can pay APNs, it probably makes sense to pay them.

If you can't pay then you would get penalties anyway.

lutkeg
27th April 2015, 11:36
Hi Fielder,

I was with Edge, and just wondered how you got on with the JR?
I'm pretty much in the same boat as many others.



I want to first thank you for providing what I feel is lifeline for a lot of people.

Please may I ask for your opinions to what course of action would be best suited?

While I believe HMRC will overall claim that I owe within interest circa £20000 from an Edge EBT it is my understanding from following several different threads that I left the scheme before any finance bill was introduced and nothing has been proved that I was evading tax, which I wasn't so why should I settle and admit to something I have not done. With my age, job position and where I live I don't have this kind of money floating around.

The way I see it right now my options would be:

a)Attempt to get a loan from somewhere and pay the APN, understanding that at least interest (possibly inheritance tax as well) is not included

b)Put what savings I have into the APN JR review but understand that I could be asked for more money soon. If I read the letter of engagement correctly within 4.4 'Charges and expenses' if I don't future add monies where required by consultancy and requested then I will fall to the wayside and I would where? This would at least allow me to save as much as I can to reduce a loan when I need one.

c)Sell what little stake I have in this property, work with the bank to pay back the mortgage at a cost and likely sell all my furnishing and find somewhere else to live with my Fiancee (who is on a zero hour contract) within 90 days. I appreciate there are people in a worse of position than myself i'm sure.

Thank you for your points of view, this is the best hope I have of getting any advice as I cannot afford decent lawyers for a decent amount of hours, especially when we all know I have done nothing wrong!

fielder
27th April 2015, 16:21
Lutkeg,

Hi there, the post that Webberg just put up is pretty damning : http://forums.contractoruk.com/hmrc-scheme-enquiries/106059-apn-penalty.html if I read it correctly.

The late payment penalties apply if payment is not made in respect of an APN by the due date, irrespective of the final outcome of the matter. So in your example below, the total of £15 of penalties would remain.

When there is a JR challenge, the penalty is chargeable from the stated due date for payment of the APN.

I have not signed up for this yet, was still contemplaiting when I recieve an APN. This being the case then what is the point apart from staving off a knock on the door as the cost will just get more and more, absolute joke. :tantrum:

lilikins1
29th April 2015, 11:33
Lutkeg,

Hi there, the post that Webberg just put up is pretty damning : http://forums.contractoruk.com/hmrc-scheme-enquiries/106059-apn-penalty.html if I read it correctly.

The late payment penalties apply if payment is not made in respect of an APN by the due date, irrespective of the final outcome of the matter. So in your example below, the total of £15 of penalties would remain.

When there is a JR challenge, the penalty is chargeable from the stated due date for payment of the APN.

I have not signed up for this yet, was still contemplaiting when I recieve an APN. This being the case then what is the point apart from staving off a knock on the door as the cost will just get more and more, absolute joke. :tantrum:

So if you pay the APN and join the JR, if the judge rules they re illegal, do you get your money back?

lilikins1
29th April 2015, 11:57
So if you pay the APN and join the JR, if the judge rules they re illegal, do you get your money back?

So have just received 2 APN s and they look like a marketing letter...'About the Tax Avoidance scheme that you used' They so want that money they re bullying people into paying with cheap tactics

webberg
29th April 2015, 13:03
So if you pay the APN and join the JR, if the judge rules they re illegal, do you get your money back?

Yes.

But you still might be liable for a late payment penalty

DonkeyRhubarb
29th April 2015, 18:35
Please Note

Unfortunately, due to lack of interest, Matt has been forced to withdraw the opportunity to participate.

The JR itself is still going ahead but only for the schemes he was already representing.

ScottW
29th April 2015, 19:55
Please Note

Unfortunately, due to lack of interest, Matt has been forced to withdraw the opportunity to participate.

The JR itself is still going ahead but only for the schemes he was already representing.


Slightly confused by this.

I'm signed up with Saleos/Matt as a result of using Edge.

My understanding was that to sign up to the JR you had to have received an APN.

I haven't had one as yet.

Does that mean I no longer have the option of JR and will just have to pay the APN?

Confused.com

cojak
29th April 2015, 21:01
I'm closing this thread, if you have any questions ask Saleos.

And there's always The Big Group if you want to join one.