Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.
AIA

HMRC wins £190m tax avoidance case

by
6th Jun 2013
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

More than 400 individuals who took part in a "highly complex" tax avoidance scheme may owe £190m after HMRC won a tax tribunal.

The scheme, promoted by boutique tax firm, NT Advisors, involved the sale of shares to the investors for millions of pounds more than they were worth. The sale of the shares created a huge paper loss – at no risk to investor, who could offset their loss against income tax.

One investor sold more than £6m-worth of shares for £552.

The first tier tribunal (Steven Price, John Myers and James Lucas v HMRC, TCO2703) said: "The magic of the scheme was to ensure that, in the round, the participants did not make the kind of economic loss which one would normally associate with acquiring shares for £6m and disposing of the them for £552."

HMRC said the case was its third successive victory against tax avoidance schemes promoted by Jersey-based NT Advisors.

NT Advisors put together a series of loans and share transactions involving SG Hambros bank in the Channel Islands. Shares in a British Virgin Island company, which had been set up for the purpose, were sold to investors for millions of pounds more than they were worth. The money for the shares put up by Hambros passed through the company and straight back to Hambros. The users of the scheme were left owing money to offshore trusts created for their own benefit, so that it did not matter that they never actually paid for the shares.

The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, David Gauke, said: "This was a highly complex avoidance scheme that was not worth buying into. HMRC will always challenge schemes like this so not only will investors have to pay the tax they owe, they will also have to pay interest; all this on top of the promoter’s fees."

Replies (4)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

By ireallyshouldknowthisbut
10th Jun 2013 11:13

.

Surely if HMRC won it is tax evasion and not avoidance?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By howardwalters
10th Jun 2013 11:48

It's not evasion

because evasion is illegal and avoidance isn't. If you were correct then any decision in favour of HMRC potentially makes a criminal of the loser?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By moneymanager
10th Jun 2013 14:57

evasion v avoidance

On the scant facts noted the scheme appears wholly artificial with the operations having no commercial intent other than claiming tax relief. As such there are long standing legal principles under wwhich it could and should be attacked.

It is unlikley though to have been an attempt at tax evasion but is rather a failed avoidance scheme. Some you win some you lose, and that natually goes for both sides.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By andrew.hyde
11th Jun 2013 15:09

Burden of proof

I think that if the users of the scheme had a reasonable, legitimate and tenable expectation that the scheme worked, then it's avoidance not evasion under the law as it stands.

If you wanted to go even further and contend it was criminal fraud, then surely you'd have to meet a criminal standard of proof?  You'd have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the users knew perfectly well that the scheme had no chance of succeeding once HMRC were apprised of the full facts.  That sounds quite difficult.

I think the truth is that the users were persuaded by a clever salesman, supported by a compliant barrister, that the scheme was very likely to succeed.  They accepted that in good faith, but of course it turned out to be wrong.  So they gambled and lost, and most of us would say 'rightly so'. 

Thanks (0)