Originally posted by Manic
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
HMRC loses big avoidance case
Collapse
X
-
-
I dont know - may not be that clear cut
If you choose CLSO2 is a DA viewed as an open or closed year ? If so an invalid DA could make a difference for some re interest payments
If you decide to pay LC then HMRC infer that open years will still be enquired into for interest etc...
Is a DA an open year and can they claim interest if successful in litigation and if that DA proves subsequently to be invalid ......and so on
If you decide to litigate whether the year of Discovery is open or closed or invalid could make all the difference
For all these reasons I think its important
But above all it highlights complacency and procedural errors within HMRC which I dont think will do them any favours in the courtroom when seeking to collect against the future loan charge for those who wish to take on the fight.Comment
-
Originally posted by Theythinkitsallover View PostSo Phil
Let me ask this question someone has an open enquiry for say 09/10 tax year. HMRC have all the relevant info on their avoidance scheme bank statements etc....... and the taxpayer is told that their use of this scheme is under investigation by the SCI unit and they will make contact. Then nothing for 10years - not a peep.
So the tax payer carries on using the same scheme for the following tax year and subsequent years despite being under enquiry for the previous year same employer etc....
HMRC fail to open and enquiry into the 10/11 or 11/12 tax year forget about it and then decide to issue discovery assessments within the 4 year time frame because time pressure and complacency meant they had failed to open the correct enquiries.
Does this not render the discovery assessment invalid too as the officer of the board was "aware of the information and potential loss of tax/use of scheme" as this information was made available in the preceding tax year under investigation and therefore the officer of the board should have reasonably assumed that there could be a loss of tax in following year and should therefore have opened an enquiries rather than a discovery assessment.
Difficult to explain I know but hopefully you get where I am coming from. Once again complacency and doing nothing by HMRC
There's quite a bit of case law on discovery.
Most cases revolve around what was on the tax returns ie. the level of detail.
For example, if there was a DOTAS number on the returns then this would be a slam dunk.Comment
-
Originally posted by Theythinkitsallover View PostSo Phil
Let me ask this question someone has an open enquiry for say 09/10 tax year. HMRC have all the relevant info on their avoidance scheme bank statements etc....... and the taxpayer is told that their use of this scheme is under investigation by the SCI unit and they will make contact. Then nothing for 10years - not a peep.
So the tax payer carries on using the same scheme for the following tax year and subsequent years despite being under enquiry for the previous year same employer etc....
HMRC fail to open and enquiry into the 10/11 or 11/12 tax year forget about it and then decide to issue discovery assessments within the 4 year time frame because time pressure and complacency meant they had failed to open the correct enquiries.
Does this not render the discovery assessment invalid too as the officer of the board was "aware of the information and potential loss of tax/use of scheme" as this information was made available in the preceding tax year under investigation and therefore the officer of the board should have reasonably assumed that there could be a loss of tax in following year and should therefore have opened an enquiries rather than a discovery assessment.
Difficult to explain I know but hopefully you get where I am coming from. Once again complacency and doing nothing by HMRC
I should state, there have been absolutely thousands of discovery cases argued in tribunals, all of which means that its not always as straightforward as perhaps should be.Comment
-
Originally posted by Theythinkitsallover View PostI dont know - may not be that clear cut
If you choose CLSO2 is a DA viewed as an open or closed year ? If so an invalid DA could make a difference for some re interest payments
If you decide to pay LC then HMRC infer that open years will still be enquired into for interest etc...
Is a DA an open year and can they claim interest if successful in litigation and if that DA proves subsequently to be invalid ......and so on
If you decide to litigate whether the year of Discovery is open or closed or invalid could make all the difference
For all these reasons I think its important
But above all it highlights complacency and procedural errors within HMRC which I dont think will do them any favours in the courtroom when seeking to collect against the future loan charge for those who wish to take on the fight.Comment
-
Originally posted by Loan Ranger View PostThe person would have an arguable case. Certainly worth seeking advice as to the chances of success of an appeal.
There's quite a bit of case law on discovery.
Most cases revolve around what was on the tax returns ie. the level of detail.
For example, if there was a DOTAS number on the returns then this would be a slam dunk.Comment
-
Originally posted by philinlondon View PostIf DOTAS number theory hold true (that will be amazing), the irony is most of us got "discovered" way after one year of which the reason why we were discovered is because we included DOTAS in our returns!Comment
-
Originally posted by phil@dswtres View PostNo I’m afraid it’s not that clear cut. DOTAS number just shows you were in the scheme, HMRC can (and have) stated that they didn’t know enough about the scheme at the time of the enquiry window so a later discovery was validComment
-
In our case, it has been clear cut.
Several people have had s29 TMA 1970 discovery assessments withdrawn after writing to HMRC citing “HMRC v Charlton, Corfield & Another”.
I'll post a template people can use.Comment
-
Originally posted by phil@dswtres View PostNo I’m afraid it’s not that clear cut. DOTAS number just shows you were in the scheme, HMRC can (and have) stated that they didn’t know enough about the scheme at the time of the enquiry window so a later discovery was validWhen freedom comes along, don't PISH in the water supply.....Comment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Comment