NT Advisors suffers eighth tribunal defeat

The Revenue has won its eighth tribunal against NT Advisors, adding to its tally of five previous victories over the promoters's schemes.

In Andrew Chappel v HMRC [2014] UKUT 0344 (TCC) the tribunal heard that Andrew Chappell, claimed a deduction of his £303,123 income for two payments.

He said he was entitled to deduct payments from his income for tax purposes, as they were manufactured overseas dividends (MODs) and therefore annual payments.

Continued...

» Register now

The full article is available to registered AccountingWEB members only. To read the rest of this article you’ll need to login or register.

Registration is FREE and allows you to view all content, ask questions, comment and much more.

Comments

Circular, artificial, cancelling

secondhand_22 | | Permalink

In which old case was this sort of thing looked at and looked through for tax?

Cutting edge technical loopholes my foot!

bizarre    2 thanks

The Black Knight | | Permalink

secondhand_22 wrote:
Which old case was this sort of thing looked at and looked through for tax? Cutting edge technical loopholes my foot!

Bizarre how they fail on basic principles as if they had no training in tax at all. Then they fail to make sure the t's are crossed and the i's dotted.

Now I understand! When these promoters didn't answer the obvious question about Ramsay and substance over form it was because they didn't know what I meant.

I thinks many accountants have been hoodwinked as well as the clients.

The cunning plan    4 thanks

secondhand_22 | | Permalink

Personally I think it's an attempt to defraud clients more than HMRC. They must know the schemes have no chance. It's getting the fee that matters. If they weren't selling schemes they'd be selling snake oil.

ShirleyM's picture

I hope the following comment holds good    2 thanks

ShirleyM | | Permalink

A Revenue spokesman explained: “The new legislation will require promoters of this kind to change their behaviour either voluntarily or, if they do not do so willingly, through the use of powerful information notices and fines of up to £1 million. Where HMRC considers that a promoter has not complied with the standards of conduct we have specified, we can apply to the independent appeal Tribunal for authority to take further steps, including publishing the promoter's identity and details of his misconduct.”

NT Advisers have cost the country loads of money, both in delayed tax payments and in court costs. I hope they are made to pay all the costs, and preferably put out of business. Like secondhand_22 says, these schemes were a complete fraud but they keep the fees while the taxpayer pays the cost.

carnmores's picture

why do these so call tax avoidance experts

carnmores | | Permalink

get referrals from acccountants

ShirleyM's picture

@carnmores

ShirleyM | | Permalink

carnmores wrote:

why do these so call tax avoidance experts

get referrals from acccountants

Because they get big fat commissions.

carnmores's picture

yes but

carnmores | | Permalink

do they credit them to the client , i think not , should they i think so . if they dont and the schemes fail do they pay back the commissions

Commissions and Independence    1 thanks

The Black Knight | | Permalink

Independence out the window then.

Added to which under professional rules these commissions should be accounted for to the client. In other words given to them and then the client should be charged for the advice.

so either  1. The client can ask for the commissions back

or 2. A fee was charged for the advice and they can sue the accountant involved for negligent advice.

 

Penalties? Have these people really taken reasonable care in their taxation affairs?

The question of penalties seems to be being avoided at present! Somebody doesn't want that argument it appears.