HMRC consultation on tackling marketed schemes

[eek]

I don't understand the problem.

Two carbon-copy schemes are run. One is found to be false, and users are ordered to pay up.
Now, HMRC can say "Since these schemes are identical, and we've already proven the way they are run to be false, users of both should pay up now."

What you appear to want is to be able to say, "Oh, but ours has a different name, so of course it's not the same scheme."

Which is fine but you make the assumption that the members of these schemes actually know the risks they were taking when they joined them. Very few of them did, they joined the scheme because they were scared about IR35 (say) and didn't fully research what they were getting themselves into.....

Lets be honest we all know enough contractors where you think how on earth do they manager to breath and talk at the same time.... Those are the people who join these schemes and HMRC will really only solve the problem by making the schemes so unattractive not even Suity would join them....

[AtW]

As I said before I really don't think the plans go far enough and schemes should have to put whopping big warnings in all literature....

This new approach should kill a lot of schemes because in effect people will have to put up tax and then sue HMRC for the money.

If it's something that has to have DOTAS number then it's crazy to even consider using it, surely that was obvious from day 1 when Govt introduced this requirement?

It's a simple GROUP BY query from HMRC DB to target such schemes with most tax avoided, perhaps QCs view was that HMRC is too incompetent to run it?

[eek]

This new approach should kill a lot of schemes because in effect people will have to put up tax and then sue HMRC for the money.

If it's something that has to have DOTAS number then it's crazy to even consider using it, surely that was obvious from day 1 when Govt introduced this requirement?

It's a simple GROUP BY query from HMRC DB to target such schemes with most tax avoided, perhaps QCs view was that HMRC is too incompetent to run it?

A DOTAS number by itself is not enough. Many of the scammers use it as a source of pride..... And if people don't understand what its for, they aren't exactly going to tell them the actual truth.....

[Ticktock]

Which is fine but you make the assumption that the members of these schemes actually know the risks they were taking when they joined them. Very few of them did, they joined the scheme because they were scared about IR35 (say) and didn't fully research what they were getting themselves into.....

Lets be honest we all know enough contractors where you think how on earth do they manager to breath and talk at the same time.... Those are the people who join these schemes and HMRC will really only solve the problem by making the schemes so unattractive not even Suity would join them....

I'm not disputing the sense in joining a scheme. I'm disputing the arguments over "pay up front".
If the methods used to avoid the payment of tax are found to not work then why does it matter whether you were using "Pay No Tax" or "No Tax to Pay", if they were run in the same way. Why does it need to be proved twice?

[d000hg]

What's consultation on FUTURE legislation got to do with No To Retro campaign?

They want to avoid future retrospective laws. Or, they want to avoid you being taxed now based on laws they'll create in the future.

[AtW]

They want to avoid future retrospective laws. Or, they want to avoid you being taxed now based on laws they'll create in the future.

That law does not change tax rates retrospectively, HMRC is tired spending millions and years on dealign with supposedly different schemes.

I'm not disputing the sense in joining a scheme. I'm disputing the arguments over "pay up front". If the methods used to avoid the payment of tax are found to not work then why does it matter whether you were using "Pay No Tax" or "No Tax to Pay", if they were run in the same way. Why does it need to be proved twice?

People got right to sue and go through many stages which takes many years and millions of taxpayer money, it works OK for those large groups of tax avoiders because they just pool up a few hundred quid as it's better than paying up all tax due. They can still do that if they really believe they are right, just they should not expect to keep the money to themselves all this time and in the end, when their legal challenge is lost, they just go bankrupt.

Tax scheme users just should not expect to spend the money right there and then, most sensible would have been to do tax deposit for 6-7 years just in case it gets challenged, but how many people did that? About zero I reckon.

[DirtyDog]

I don't understand the problem.

Two carbon-copy schemes are run. One is found to be false, and users are ordered to pay up.
Now, HMRC can say "Since these schemes are identical, and we've already proven the way they are run to be false, users of both should pay up now."

What you appear to want is to be able to say, "Oh, but ours has a different name, so of course it's not the same scheme."

The danger is that HMRC win one case, they then say "all cases match that one case, so pay up now" and there is no mechanism for appealing to show that the scheme is different.

HMRC then drag their feet for a few years until there is a case involving that scheme - they have the money, so where is the incentive to hurry it up? - and they lose. They can then repay the money with interest to the people they wrongly charged. Which doesn't go far towards trying to buy back the house and family that you've lost.

If there is sufficient oversight to show how the two schemes are the same, then I see no problem with the proposals - the danger is how do you ensure HMRC don't just class everything under the same banner.

(FWIW, I don't use, nor have I ever used any such scheme, but I think there may be potential for scope creep here!)

[AtW]

The danger is that HMRC win one case, they then say "all cases match that one case, so pay up now" and there is no mechanism for appealing to show that the scheme is different.

Name me one example of DOTAS scheme that is honest to God not in the ballpark "fook the HMRC out of tax due" mode.

Using a DOTAs scheme is an effective equivalent of dressing up like Hitler and walking towards Soviet trenches - of course you are gonna get blasted to pieces and nobody will care if it's Charlie Chaplin himself who got lost.

[DirtyDog]

Name me one example of DOTAS scheme that is honest to God not in the ballpark "fook the HMRC out of tax due" mode.

Using a DOTAs scheme is an effective equivalent of dressing up like Hitler and walking towards Soviet trenches.

Name me two identical schemes, and on what basis are they identical. He who asserts must prove is a fundamental basis of English law, yet this allows for HMRC to assert that two schemes are the same, and only some years later will there be any scope for someone to say "oh, no they aren't, have some interest to make up for how we got it wrong".

[AtW]

Name me two identical schemes, and on what basis are they identical. He who asserts must prove is a fundamental basis of English law, yet this allows for HMRC to assert that two schemes are the same, and only some years later will there be any scope for someone to say "oh, no they aren't, have some interest to make up for how we got it wrong".

This will be the new fundamental element of English law - pay fooking taxes and sleep well.

Anybody on DOTAS should have been required to get Certificate of Tax Deposit for full amount due under normal conditions (ie almost everybody else in UK) for at least 6 years, this new law is in effect a mild version of that.