S58 and No To Retrospective Taxation - latest?

S58 and No To Retrospective Taxation - has any progress been made?

Didn't find your answer?

A new client who has asked me to prepare his Accounts (relatively new Limited Company) and personal tax return has also just advised that he is one of the unfortunate people still undergoing investigation as a result of S58 of the FA2008! 

This is an issue that appears to have first arisen over 12 years ago affecting upwards of 3,000 tax payers who have been challenged by HMRC over tax planning schemes that they were involved in roughly between 2003 and 2006.

He continues to get letters from HMRC and the issue for him remains unresolved and like many others involved is causing serious stress and worry.

These issues relate to a period long before I started working as an accountant and is way beyond the scope of my normal work, knowledge or experience so I have advised  I am not in a position to advise on this area.

However I would like to try and point him in the right direction to try to help him and the research I have done since our meeting indicates there have been support groups set up to campaign in this area.

I looked at NTRT but they appear to no longer be accepting members. 

Have any tax payers had any success in this area?

Could anyone here kindly help point my client in the right direction towards someone who might be able to give him the help support and advice he needs?

Thank you

Replies (15)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

By ireallyshouldknowthisbut
18th Nov 2019 09:26

All HMRC are doing is either (a) taxing the outstanding loan these schemes created, or (b) giving your client the option of paying the tax they would have paid, had the scheme not been in place. Which quite frankly is nice of them, they could have just done (a) which will tend to be more.

Its not retrospective, that is a myth put around by those selling the schemes who neglected to mention the fact the o/s loan keeps their position open permanently.

If you can get that over to your client it will be much easier for them to accept they need to pay some tax. Ie They tried it on, HMRC out smarted 'em, and now they are paying the consequences.

Thanks (2)
Replying to ireallyshouldknowthisbut:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
18th Nov 2019 09:37

You're thinking of the anti-Justin loan charge; s58 FA 2008 really was retrospective (see ss4).

Thanks (2)
Replying to ireallyshouldknowthisbut:
Lone Wolf
By Lone_Wolf
18th Nov 2019 09:49

Yeah, but you're just saying that because you're a muppet, and clearly have no understanding of the issue. There you go Justin, saved you typing that out again ;)

Thanks (2)
Replying to Lone_Wolf:
By ireallyshouldknowthisbut
18th Nov 2019 10:40

What this bit?

"The amendments made by subsections (1) to (3) are treated as always having had effect"

That does seem a tad retrospective.

I might have to agree with Jason on that one. Much as it pains me to do so.

Thanks (0)
Replying to ireallyshouldknowthisbut:
Psycho
By Wilson Philips
18th Nov 2019 10:51

I have absolutely no problem with agreeing with Jason (sic) when he is right. Which is why I so seldom agree with him.

Thanks (4)
Replying to Wilson Philips:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
18th Nov 2019 11:10

When did I get outed?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
Psycho
By Wilson Philips
18th Nov 2019 11:25

Unless your name is Jason, I don't understand ...

Thanks (0)
Replying to Wilson Philips:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
18th Nov 2019 11:32

Well at the time ireally was agreeing with Jason, there were no other candidates (apart from the OP).

This conversation has gone surreal. And is of no use to the OP... OP, I can't help. Sorry.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
Psycho
By Wilson Philips
18th Nov 2019 11:52

I had assumed that J...n was a typo, and that he meant J....n ;¬)

Thanks (0)
Replying to Wilson Philips:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
18th Nov 2019 12:05

Phew. (And, FYI, while my pseudonym might suggest I am one of the Scorchers, I confirm I am not Jason himself.)

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Justin Bryant
18th Nov 2019 10:32

This is beyond the usual muppetness (a bit like TD's recent IHT beneficiary loan comment), so not even worthy of my scorn.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
18th Nov 2019 10:54

So we need to say something knowledgeable in order to deserve the honour of receiving your scorn?

Thanks (2)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
18th Nov 2019 11:01

Waldorf:
Why do we always come here

Statler:
I guess we'll never know

Waldorf:
It's like a kind of torture

Both:
To have to watch the show

Thanks (2)
avatar
By arthurallan
20th Nov 2019 09:14

Sorry didn't mean to spark a bit of friendly sparring here. Was just hoping someone might have some experience with a client going through this difficult process. My bread and butter business is sole traders and simple one man businesses and the issues involved here are outside of what I feel comfortable handling, not least because these schemes preceded my training. I was just keen to be able to try to direct my client to someone who had some expertise and knowledge in this area.

Thanks (0)
Replying to arthurallan:
Psycho
By Wilson Philips
20th Nov 2019 11:05

I can think of one person that would claim to have a great deal of expertise and knowledge in this area. Whether he is equipped to provide impartial professional advice on the topic is an entirely different matter.

Thanks (0)