HMRC Enquiries: Bedouin/Redstone

[derekdunn1873]

Why is the settlement opportunity a real opportunity?

The Settlement Opportunity expires in about 90 days and a lot of contractors caught up in this are still choosing to ignore it.

I set out below the two main reasons why nearly all those that have not yet applied should do so now and obtain from HMRC the tax and interest calculations of their (albeit disputed) liability:

1. To quantify which years and amounts HMRC say are included in the dispute and confirm that these are in fact correct. This can take some time.
2. In preparation for the Accelerated Payment Notices (which will only allow 90 days to quantify the correct liabilities) and agree terms for payment within the deadline (to avoid Late Payment Penalties).

The tax and interest calculation can be obtained by completing and submitting the HMRC form DO3 which can be downloaded at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...alculation-do3

I want to know what the poster above feels are the benefits of the settlement opportunity? The figure I was given by HMRC is reasonably accurate and is for the tax owed, there are no deals, no discounts and all interest is payable, plus interest, therefore I don't feel that this is what I would call a "settlement" that is like buying a chocolate bar for the normal price of a chocolate bar? A settlement for me is more of a compromise?

I have now appealed against the HMRC letter within 30days of receipt, and the case may take until long after July to move forward from here, just wondering what negative connotations not paying before July will have.

My amount is relatively small, so have the money set aside to pay already when it happens, I just am in no rush to give HMRC what they think I owe immediately without appealing...

[convict]

remember that "settlement" does not infer an advantage or describe favourable terms. All it means is that you've concluded those years (or not, depending on the IHT question, but that's another discussion)

[derekdunn1873]

Settlement

remember that "settlement" does not infer an advantage or describe favourable terms. All it means is that you've concluded those years (or not, depending on the IHT question, but that's another discussion)

I completely agree with you, but if this is the case, I.e. Pay what you are due, no discounts, why are they closing this "opportunity", usually when things are limited in time there is some kind of benefit of taking part, this for me looks like "you should settle now, or just give us the same amount anyway at a later date..."

[convict]

they are doing it to create a sense of urgency and get the coffers in. Much like the never-ending DFS sales. The other thing was the dangling of the NI shadow but I think that bubble has been burst now. Much better off just paying the APN if/when and then joining a group and fighting.

[DotasScandal]

I completely agree with you, but if this is the case, I.e. Pay what you are due, no discounts, why are they closing this "opportunity", usually when things are limited in time there is some kind of benefit of taking part, this for me looks like "you should settle now, or just give us the same amount anyway at a later date..."

As convict said, it is all spin. HMRC boast about using the most cutting edge "behaviour management" techniques, but this is the oldest marketing trick in the book really ("for a limited time only!!!!! don't miss out!!!")
Also, calling it an "opportunity" is enough for a certain % of people to believe it is actually one, even though it's pretty obvious it's anything but.
I have no doubt that a consultancy has charged HMRC big bucks for those "insights".... Yes, that's what our tax money is being spent on.

[webberg]

It's a settlement because HMRC will argue that the terms offered are based on an analysis that is not the very worst that could happen in Court (see below) and has no penalty attached to it. The final value if HMRC took the kitchen sink route could be higher and hence they see it as "letting you off lightly".

It's a settlement because HMRC is not charging any costs of investigation or litigation which a losing Court case would almost certainly impose.

It's a settlement because HMRC is not permitted to "do a deal" and horse trade because our wonderful group of hard working politicians, made bad law without thought for the consequences, damned the HMRC Civil Servants when they tried to make it work and delight in scoring tabloid headline points scolding those who are not allowed to retaliate.

Is it fair - NO. Will it be extended again - NO. Will a losing court decision be worse - YES. Will HMRC be looking for penalties - YES.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Whilst taking your case to the FTT would incur your own costs, the FTT don't award the other side's costs so you wouldn't have to pick up HMRC's legal tab.

Personally I think it's highly unlikely HMRC would secure penalties because everyone who joined these schemes was professional advised. Most schemes were backed by a Counsel opinion.

I'm sorry but my opinion of the SO is it's bone

[StrengthInNumbers]

Don't agree with webberg's first 2 paras. Agree with DR. Whne litigation starts generally with HMRC both side agree to not go for costs. If Rangers getting litigation cost from HMRC? No.

[webberg]

Don't agree with webberg's first 2 paras. Agree with DR. Whne litigation starts generally with HMRC both side agree to not go for costs. If Rangers getting litigation cost from HMRC? No.

Mr DR is correct in his information on costs. FTT rarely award costs.

The litigation will however inevitably go beyond FTT and every level above that does have the power to award costs.

It is possible to agree at the outset that each side will meet its own costs and not ask the Court for reimbursement. that si usually accompanied by a requirement to pay funds "into Court" prior to litigation beginning. Otherwise one party could go to the trouble of getting advice only for the other to pull out.

Whether you agree with my assessment or not is irrelevant. I wrote exactly what HMRC believe and what is driving their position.

I used to think that HMRC would respond to reasoned argument, alternative analysis and have some regard to the professional and personal consequences for thousands of people. I no longer believe that.

I believe instead that HMRC has set themselves on a path that has no choice but to end at the Supreme Court. That will allow them to issue Follower Notices and to operate against contractors with impunity. They have decided that disguised employment is as bad as disguised remuneration and are in the trenches in a war of attrition.

That is a matter of deep regret and a throw back to the Government and Civil Service attitudes and operations of 50 years ago.

The opportunity to make a difference whilst opinion was still forming has now gone and there's an arms race in progress.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Basically there is no attractive option, so take your pick of a bad bunch.

Accept the SO.

OR

Pay the APNs and await the outcome of other EBT court cases.

OR

Pay the APNs and take your own case to court.