PDA

View Full Version : Tax Avoidance Deals to be Done ?



regron
11th May 2015, 14:23
Tax Avoidance Barrister Joylon Maugham suggests that now the political pressure is off, deals should be done to solve the backlog of Tax Avoidance disputes !

From Joylon Maugham's Twitter page.

Who he is -

Jolyon Maugham QC - Barrister - Devereux Chambers (http://www.devereuxchambers.co.uk/barrister/55/jolyon_maugham)

His tweets today -

https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/597762771229548545
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/597763164378374144

DotasScandal
11th May 2015, 15:08
Tax Avoidance Barrister Joylon Maugham suggests that now the political pressure is off, deals should be done to solve the backlog of Tax Avoidance disputes !

From Joylon Maugham's Twitter page.

Who he is -
Jolyon Maugham QC - Barrister - Devereux Chambers (http://www.devereuxchambers.co.uk/barrister/55/jolyon_maugham)
His tweets today -
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/597762771229548545
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/597763164378374144

Saw this. He has always been in favour of HMRC doing deals, as expressed in his articles and blog posts, so nothing new here.
That is only his personal opinion and I would not make anything of the above tweets.

LandRover
11th May 2015, 15:17
Tax Avoidance Barrister Joylon Maugham suggests that now the political pressure is off, deals should be done to solve the backlog of Tax Avoidance disputes !

From Joylon Maugham's Twitter page.

Who he is -

Jolyon Maugham QC - Barrister - Devereux Chambers (http://www.devereuxchambers.co.uk/barrister/55/jolyon_maugham)

His tweets today -

https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/597762771229548545
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/597763164378374144

You would think with a Conservative majority and Gauke moved to Pensions, no liberals to keep bleating on how tax avoidance is an act of evil against ones nation,...perhaps deals could be brokered...I for one hope the government do look at this.:grin

webberg
11th May 2015, 15:24
I think that the answer presently is "NO", but I'm clinging to a faint hope that pure arithmetic will drive HMRC to this conclusion.

The publicised HMRC figure of current disputes is 60,000. That figure has not moved in 4 years and I suggest it has not gone down.

Average film scheme LLP has say 150 members. Average property scheme perhaps 200. Average contractor scheme say 500. Let's say average 300. So 60,000 disputes, 300 per dispute = 200 schemes.

A QC would need something like 5 days to read instructions and research an opinion. Perhaps a further 15 to 20 to prepare a case. Another 3 to 50 to present it. Let's say 25 days.

200 x 25 = 5,000 days. Back to back in a working year of around 220 days = nearly 23 years.

more likely each QC would be doing 3 a year. Tax barristers/advocates = (I don't really know but let's say) 50.

So that's 150 a year, = 40 years assuming Courts and Judges available.

You can perhaps double that because HMRC also use QC's. So say 80 years worth of work.

You can guarantee that the Civil Service is not efficient but that their manpower cost is lower. A private case to FTT is perhaps £500k to £1m depending on complexity. Let's multiply by 1.5 for HMG's cost. Therefore 200 x 1.5 x £750k (mean) = £225m (Two hundred and twenty five MILLION).

Tax at stake (allegedly) £7bn. HMRC will lose at least 30% of cases. therefore down to £4.9bn. They will get adjusted also for failure to pay by taxpayers for all sorts of reasons (but will continue to spend YOUR money chasing). I reckon they might get £2.1bn to £3bn.

So spending £1 to get £13, makes sense, even if the time value of money reduces the £13 proportionately more than the £1.

However a sensible settlement offer at say 50% of the tax due (most would take that I suspect) but at perhaps 25% of the costs, says they collect £62 per £1.

Now call me old fashioned but when I did arithmetic at skool £62 was more than £13.

By the way the above, estimated as it is, is to go to FTT only. Whilst going beyond that in Court is progressively fewer cases, it still reduces the £13/£1 ratio.

The above is common sense. If I were a new Tory minister looking to the next election and wanting a "win" along the lines of "look how much back tax I collected", I would seriously consider some form of amnesty and sensible settlement policy. Do it now and in 5 years time almost everybody has forgotten that you "let off" nasty tax avoiders in favour of collecting real money.

DonkeyRhubarb
11th May 2015, 15:42
The only problem is I think the Government see APNs as the way to bring the money in now.

They are probably also banking on very little of it having to be refunded.

There's not a lot of incentive for doing deals. Yes, deals would clear the backlog but do they really care if they've got the money?

DotasScandal
11th May 2015, 15:50
The only problem is I think the Government see APNs as the way to bring the money in now.
They are probably also banking on very little of it having to be refunded.
There's not a lot of incentive for doing deals. Yes, deals would clear the backlog but do they really care if they've got the money?

Apparently, they are also banking on very little resistance to their looting operation.
Time will tell.

webberg
11th May 2015, 15:53
Agree with most of the above.

That is why it's important that the £1/£13 ratio is reduced by forcing HMRC to do more work and actually GET IT RIGHT, rather than assume they are right without bothering to actually read the law they are meant to operate within.

gettingangry
11th May 2015, 18:55
Every time HMRC pay a QC they will get 50% back in tax

EBTContractor
11th May 2015, 22:23
I've always said when the clowns send me an APN I'll challenge the original Discovery piece and say it's invalid.

i reckon deals will be made, Dave's government has many mates who took parts in schemes and tax avoidance products.

LandRover
11th May 2015, 22:32
I think that the answer presently is "NO", but I'm clinging to a faint hope that pure arithmetic will drive HMRC to this conclusion.

The publicised HMRC figure of current disputes is 60,000. That figure has not moved in 4 years and I suggest it has not gone down.

Average film scheme LLP has say 150 members. Average property scheme perhaps 200. Average contractor scheme say 500. Let's say average 300. So 60,000 disputes, 300 per dispute = 200 schemes.

A QC would need something like 5 days to read instructions and research an opinion. Perhaps a further 15 to 20 to prepare a case. Another 3 to 50 to present it. Let's say 25 days.

200 x 25 = 5,000 days. Back to back in a working year of around 220 days = nearly 23 years.

more likely each QC would be doing 3 a year. Tax barristers/advocates = (I don't really know but let's say) 50.

So that's 150 a year, = 40 years assuming Courts and Judges available.

You can perhaps double that because HMRC also use QC's. So say 80 years worth of work.

You can guarantee that the Civil Service is not efficient but that their manpower cost is lower. A private case to FTT is perhaps £500k to £1m depending on complexity. Let's multiply by 1.5 for HMG's cost. Therefore 200 x 1.5 x £750k (mean) = £225m (Two hundred and twenty five MILLION).

Tax at stake (allegedly) £7bn. HMRC will lose at least 30% of cases. therefore down to £4.9bn. They will get adjusted also for failure to pay by taxpayers for all sorts of reasons (but will continue to spend YOUR money chasing). I reckon they might get £2.1bn to £3bn.

So spending £1 to get £13, makes sense, even if the time value of money reduces the £13 proportionately more than the £1.

However a sensible settlement offer at say 50% of the tax due (most would take that I suspect) but at perhaps 25% of the costs, says they collect £62 per £1.

Now call me old fashioned but when I did arithmetic at skool £62 was more than £13.

By the way the above, estimated as it is, is to go to FTT only. Whilst going beyond that in Court is progressively fewer cases, it still reduces the £13/£1 ratio.

The above is common sense. If I were a new Tory minister looking to the next election and wanting a "win" along the lines of "look how much back tax I collected", I would seriously consider some form of amnesty and sensible settlement policy. Do it now and in 5 years time almost everybody has forgotten that you "let off" nasty tax avoiders in favour of collecting real money.

Please send this to the Treasury, lol, do they realise the costs are horrific:mad:

Seriously though, having a breakdown of costs should be emailed to all Conservative MPs.

DotasScandal
12th May 2015, 07:56
Please send this to the Treasury, lol, do they realise the costs are horrific:mad:
Seriously though, having a breakdown of costs should be emailed to all Conservative MPs.

Not only Conservative MPs - all MPs. And I'm also completely serious.

webberg
12th May 2015, 08:01
Not only Conservative MPs - all MPs. And I'm also completely serious.

Part of BIG GROUP is arming critics of the Government (in all colours, shapes and sizes) with this sort of data PROVIDED that it can be verified and supported.

The first step is to get an MP to ask a question about how much settling the 60,000 disputes will cost HMRC and how long it will take.

Once the opposition has settled down, we will find a sympathetic ear or two and prime them.

dangerouswhensober
12th May 2015, 10:07
However a sensible settlement offer at say 50% of the tax due (most would take that I suspect) but at perhaps 25% of the costs, says they collect £62 per £1.


In my opinion, most wouldn't take that 50% of tax claimed (NOT "tax due") - especially the viewers of these boards, for two reasons:

(a) Primarily because they couldn't. Most scheme members (not just IT contractors, but also investors in film schemes, health care workers, pro footballers, etc.) were in these schemes for several years, and the amounts of tax claimed are very much more than could be found by either liquidating investments or working under some "time-to-pay" for a year or two, and

(b) Because they wouldn't - it's a bit like vountarily accepting a jail term for a crime you know you didn't commit - and saying "thank you very much for the opportunity to go to jail for a reduced amount of time - that's very kind of you".

Personally, I would settle for 15%-25% of the amount claimed from me, payable over five years - with NO admission of any wrong-doing ...

BTW - There was a "straw poll" on these boards before Xmas regarding the ability of people to pay expected APNs. I'd be very interested to see a similar poll along the lines of:

"For your own individual case, if HMRC were willing to make a deal, what would you be able (or prepared) to settle for:

(1) The full amount, payable immediately or over 2 years
(2) The full amount, payable over 5 years
(3) 50% payable over 5 years
(4) 40% payable over 5 years
(5) 25% payable over 5 years
(6) 10% payable over 5 years
(7) Nothing - HMG and HMRC can stick their "claims" up their respective jacksies - I'm prepared to fight it out through the legal system

I'd also hope that any HMG/HMRC bods reading the results of such a poll might be inspired to make the appropriate suggestions to their superiors ...

DotasScandal
12th May 2015, 10:30
Amen to that

Expecially:



b) Because they wouldn't - it's a bit like vountarily accepting a jail term for a crime you know you didn't commit - and saying "thank you very much for the opportunity to go to jail for a reduced amount of time - that's very kind of you".