HMRC enquiries for EBT schemes through SANZAR HMRC enquiries for EBT schemes through SANZAR - Page 40
Page 40 of 150 FirstFirst ... 3038394041425090140 ... LastLast
Posts 391 to 400 of 1495
  1. #391

    Fingers like lightning


    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    513

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrO666 View Post
    I agree that's certainly how it sounds, however remember it still needs to get through parliament etc. I will certainly get some advice on this though, so apologies if I'm wrong.

    On a separate note, people in receipt of 09-10 and 10-11 Discovery Assessments.............are anybody's figures actually correct ?
    ...is there an idiots way of working it out?

  2. #392

    More time posting than coding

    MrO666's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jbryce View Post
    ...is there an idiots way of working it out?
    Just look at your P11D for that year......do the sums that HMRC say you had in loans tie up (as they should do) ?

  3. #393

    varunksingh

    Guest

    Default

    We have been discussing it here: http://forums.contractoruk.com/hmrc-...e-schemes.html.

    If HMRC gets this approved they will send notice to anyone who's self assessment has a DOTAS number - even without a follower case. Whether under DOTAS or "substantially" similar case, tax payer will have NO RIGHT TO APPEAL and will have to pay in 90 days. It is retrospective and against natural justice.

    To start with respond to
    https://www.gov.uk/government/upload..._avoidance.pdf

    It is important you get involved and put across your views. Then once HMRC publishes the final text in Mar/Apr, I guess it will time to write to MPs and Lords and lobby against it in any way you can. HMRC knows quite a few schemes were properly implemented and are 100% legal or in some case HMRC is out of time and thus are trying to find a way to get more tax collected which legally they might not be allowed to do.
    Last edited by varunksingh; 7th February 2014 at 21:25.

  4. #394

    Double Godlike!

    malvolio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Walking in the garden, dreaming of Olivia...
    Posts
    11,437

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by varunksingh View Post
    snip... It is retrospective and against natural justice.
    No, get your facts straight; it's neither. They are starting with an entirely reasonable assumption that you have paid the wrong amount of tax against your stated gross income.
    Blog? What blog...?

  5. #395

    varunksingh

    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by malvolio View Post
    No, get your facts straight; it's neither. They are starting with an entirely reasonable assumption that you have paid the wrong amount of tax against your stated gross income.
    How is it not retrospective? Does DOTAS legislation today says that if you declare DOTAS SRN on a tax return, disputed tax will have to be paid upfront? Assume what they wish and apply to future cases - from after the date the ASSUMPTION was made.
    Last edited by varunksingh; 8th February 2014 at 10:13.

  6. #396

    Godlike


    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,650

    Default Is the DOTAS proposal retrospective?

    Example

    Person used a scheme in 2004/5 that was registered under DOTAS. Person put the SRN on their tax return. HMRC opened an enquiry, which is still open in 2014. No cases, involving the scheme, have been taken to tribunal.

    Under the DOTAS proposal, HMRC would now be able demand payment of the tax they deem has been underpaid, even though the matter has never been tested in court.

  7. #397

    Should post faster


    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    181

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by malvolio View Post
    No, get your facts straight; it's neither. They are starting with an entirely reasonable assumption that you have paid the wrong amount of tax against your stated gross income.
    Ah yes, assumption, a fine basis for law.

  8. #398

    Fingers like lightning


    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    513

    Default Ouch

    Quote Originally Posted by malvolio View Post
    No, get your facts straight; it's neither. They are starting with an entirely reasonable assumption that you have paid the wrong amount of tax against your stated gross income.
    ...and they have existing legislation which allows them to issue an assessment and a demand for payment. A user can request a 'postponement' application which HMRC can reject requiring the application be managed by the a tribunal. This appears to be a fair process where HMRC can assume all they want, but in the end the dispute is handled impartially.

    As far as I can see, accelerated payments apply for users of tax schemes that have been defeated at tribunal - these users would have to make an upfront payment.
    That doesn't appear entirely unreasonable, it saves the Tax payer money and reduces the number of individual cases being dragged though FTTs etc. However, in the proposals there doesn't appear to be an independent means of appealing the payment notice - this is solely handle by HMRC, not an independent body. The fact that the HMRC get to decide if their view is 'reasonable' is not balanced or impartial and really, well, unjust.

    I'm going to be stung massively by all this, either in Lawyers fees or Tax payments. That is my bad luck, however I wish to be treated impartially and fairly - so far I have been.

    Loads of stuff on this http://forums.contractoruk.com/hmrc-...chemes-16.html

  9. #399

    varunksingh

    Guest

    Default

    I also agree 100% that a representative case for a scheme and if lost no one else in that scheme should be allowed to hold on to disputed tax. Just look at Boyle, Aberdeen Asset Management and Rangers cases - all are completely different to each other. My issue is HMRC getting to decide which case to apply to which schemes. HMRC are tax collectors but with this legislation will have judicial powers as well. Many other things wrong with this legislation including retrospective nature.

  10. #400

    Godlike


    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by varunksingh View Post
    I also agree 100% that a representative case for a scheme and if lost no one else in that scheme should be allowed to hold on to disputed tax. Just look at Boyle, Aberdeen Asset Management and Rangers cases - all are completely different to each other. My issue is HMRC getting to decide which case to apply to which schemes. HMRC are tax collectors but with this legislation will have judicial powers as well. Many other things wrong with this legislation including retrospective nature.
    But HMRC never ever abuse their powers.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •