s660A - More Revenue "Guidance"

[Bradley]

Following a recent court case the Revenue won, they now have the power to investigate 6 years worth of returns unless you tell them that you think that s660 applies to you but you've ignored that. The guidance says:

The guidance on discovery is that taxpayers should enter in the Additional Information space comments to the effect that they have not followed the Revenue guidance in respect of section 660A. As indicated above, protection can be achieved by noting that 'Revenue guidance indicates that s 660A may apply. No adjustment has been made

Turkeys voting for Xmas?

[mailmannz]

Whats this mean in english?

[Bradley]

Re:Engrish

It means that you have to tell the taxman that you've given shares to your wife to avoid higher-rate tax or they'll investigate you from now until the day you die.

[Rhino]

Re: Re:Engrish

Bradley

The Revenue seem to be aiming their sights at husband and wife companies or possibly companies where the shareholders have the same surname. How do you think this will effect people who use other relations, unmarried spouses, friends etc as co-shareholders ?

[Bradley]

Re:Re:Engrish

Same deal even if it's not your wife - the revenue are targetting "arrangements" whereby your income is diverted to someone else. Basically they're now up the ante by asking you to turn yourself in to them. If you don't then they're going to throw the book at you.

[Robot]

Advice from SJDAccountancy - RE S660

PS - Simon hope you don't mind me using your link.

[partimer]

Re:Re:Engrish

Holy cr@p !!!
Isn't there a law where you don't have to incriminate yourself.
(Robert Maxwell's sons used it didn't they - please tell me I can use that law.)
Isn't that part of my human rights ...

Fecking hell, talk about following IR advice up to a few months ago, they were still advising you to do the husband/wife split.

Well I can see this is going to go down well with the small businesses.

[Bradley]

Re:Penalties

In the circumstances it is highly unlikely that any penalties would be charged on these amounts.

Don't know where you got that impression from Simon? According to the Revenue you will have had at least two tax years to report your "indiscretions" as that is the length of time they have issued the guidance. So at the very least the Revenue will be looking for penalties from tax year 2002/03 onwards. The demands for back-tax in the Arctic case were dropped on a technicality so we don't know if the Revenue would have pursued penalties in that case.

At the vert least your accountant should be making it clear to you that the latest tax returns should have the s660 non-compliance declaration or they will clobber you for penalties.

[malvolio]

The other point is

...that this is being done on the back of a highly dubious ruling that is being appealed at the High Court.

It is no part of English Law that you can enforce such a thing, but our beloved leaders don't seem to have accepted that restriction. >D

[Bradley]

Re:Arctic

The case I'm referring to is the Veltema case not Arctic. The Revenue are saying that even if they're wrong about Arctic you must say that you disagree with them or they'll charge penalties, albeit on a disputed theory. Given that it may take two or three years for Arctic to reach the House of Lords it still means two or three years of threatening letters etc and resultant lawyers/accountants costs before you know you're in the clear.