HMRC consultation on tackling marketed schemes

[Ticktock]

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".

I won't name two schemes as I can't even name one scheme. I don't go looking for schemes to avoid paying tax.

As for the burden of proof - that applies when a penalty is to be charged to the accused (whether a financial penalty, being locked up, whatever). No penalty is being charged here by asking for the tax element to be paid up front.
Instead, a question is raised as to who owns an amount of money. At present that money stays with the person who currently has it. Instead, HMRC want to hold it. Once the question of ownership has been resolved then the money goes to the correct party.

[AtW]

Instead, a question is raised as to who owns an amount of money. At present that money stays with the person who currently has it. Instead, HMRC want to hold it. Once the question of ownership has been resolved then the money goes to the correct party.

It's not unreasonable for HMRC to ensure that money don't get spent whilst dispute is going on - right now they are being forced to spend millions and years only to end up with tax avoider being declared bankrupt.

[DirtyDog]

Instead, a question is raised as to who owns an amount of money. At present that money stays with the person who currently has it. Instead, HMRC want to hold it. Once the question of ownership has been resolved then the money goes to the correct party.

The difference being that if I hold on to my money and am proved wrong, the cost to the other party is negligible and can easily be compensated with via charging interest.

If HMRC hold demand money that I haven't got, take my house and everything I own, force me into bankruptcy and then turn round and return the money because they were proved wrong, there is very little they can do at that stage to compensate.

Once HMRC take everything because that's what they estimate the tax take to be (on whatever basis they use to determine how much is owed), they also make it nigh-on impossible to fight - so HMRC get the headlines of how they must be right because no-one has successfully challenged them.

[DirtyDog]

It's not unreasonable for HMRC to ensure that money don't get spent whilst dispute is going on - right now they are being forced to spend millions and years only to end up with tax avoider being declared bankrupt.

So there should be an incentive for HMRC to come to trial quickly, then, rather than dragging it out and hoping that people lose the will to fight, which seems to be their current modus operandi.

[DirtyDog]

It's not unreasonable for HMRC to ensure that money don't get spent whilst dispute is going on - right now they are being forced to spend millions and years only to end up with tax avoider being declared bankrupt.

It's not unreasonable for HMRC to recoup £6bn from Vodafone, but they haven't done that (nor will they).

[northernladuk]

Three pages in and not a single thread with any forum of personal abuse in. General is broken.

[Pondlife]

Three pages in and not a single thread with any forum of personal abuse in. General is broken.

Sort your Avatar out you numpty. It's mid Feb FFS.


Better?

[Ticktock]

The difference being that if I hold on to my money and am proved wrong, the cost to the other party is negligible and can easily be compensated with via charging interest.

Irrelevent. It also assumes that the very rich will not be affected by this. Unless you're suggesting that we start means testing everyone to decide how much of an impact it will have, and then decide whether they should place the amount in question into escrow?
Besides, with the cuts in government spending and drive to reduce deficits, are you suggesting that people witholding taxes has no effect on government spending? Arguably it has a larger effect, as it hits a larger number of people.

If HMRC hold demand money that I haven't got, take my house and everything I own, force me into bankruptcy and then turn round and return the money because they were proved wrong, there is very little they can do at that stage to compensate.

There is an argument to say that you own that house BECAUSE of avoiding paying tax, that you have already enjoyed the benefit of not paying the tax, and why should you be able to continue enjoying those benefits while in dispute.
And let's not forget, if they have already proved that a mechanism is false, and by looking at the mechanics of a second scheme see it works in the same way, then in reality this will happen anyway, it will just take longer and cost taxpayers more.

Once HMRC take everything because that's what they estimate the tax take to be (on whatever basis they use to determine how much is owed), they also make it nigh-on impossible to fight - so HMRC get the headlines of how they must be right because no-one has successfully challenged them.

Hyperbole. Yes, of course, the nasty old HMRC will just look at you and say "All is ours". They use the same calculation as employed at present when deciding the amount of tax due, except now they would run that calculation at the start of the process instead of 10+ years later when they manage to drag the scheme into proceedings.
As for making it impossible to fight... Surely the scheme providers have all promised to fight on their members behalfs? And they are all upstanding organisations. It's not like they're scam artists.

[stonehenge]

Wow!

Posting this in General.

Brave man...

Nah, they're all pussies here.

[DirtyDog]

Irrelevent. It also assumes that the very rich will not be affected by this.

No it doesn't.

Unless you're suggesting that we start means testing everyone to decide how much of an impact it will have, and then decide whether they should place the amount in question into escrow?

No, I'm suggesting that when HMRC win something, then they get the money. Until they win, then they shouldn't have the right to bankrupt people.

Besides, with the cuts in government spending and drive to reduce deficits, are you suggesting that people witholding taxes has no effect on government spending? Arguably it has a larger effect, as it hits a larger number of people.

If HMRC lose, then they are going to have to repay the money anyway with interest. If they win, then they get paid with interest. So, the net effect is nil. The impact on the individual that they chose wrongly to bankrupt is immeasurable.

There is an argument to say that you own that house BECAUSE of avoiding paying tax, that you have already enjoyed the benefit of not paying the tax, and why should you be able to continue enjoying those benefits while in dispute.

Well, that's HMRC's argument, yes.

And let's not forget, if they have already proved that a mechanism is false, and by looking at the mechanics of a second scheme see it works in the same way, then in reality this will happen anyway, it will just take longer and cost taxpayers more.

The price of justice is a pain we all have to bear. I'm of the "innocent until proven guilty" school of thought, though - I'd rather have something proved in court than someone at HMRC saying "this is similar, give us everything you have, and we'll give it back if you can prove us wrong, which will be easy when you have no money".

Hyperbole. Yes, of course, the nasty old HMRC will just look at you and say "All is ours". They use the same calculation as employed at present when deciding the amount of tax due, except now they would run that calculation at the start of the process instead of 10+ years later when they manage to drag the scheme into proceedings.

I don't see it that way - I think that there are people who would be caught by this who would have to pay enough money to bankrupt them. I also think that there are some cases where HMRC would be wrong in saying "this scheme is identical to that scheme, so pay up".

As for making it impossible to fight... Surely the scheme providers have all promised to fight on their members behalfs? And they are all upstanding organisations. It's not like they're scam artists.

Irrelevant. If the individual wants / needs to fight it, and they have no money left to fund that defence, then it follows that they won't be able to do fight the case.