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.
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.
You're thinking of the anti-Justin loan charge; s58 FA 2008 really was retrospective (see ss4).
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 ;)
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.
I have absolutely no problem with agreeing with Jason (sic) when he is right. Which is why I so seldom agree with him.
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.
Phew. (And, FYI, while my pseudonym might suggest I am one of the Scorchers, I confirm I am not Jason himself.)
This is beyond the usual muppetness (a bit like TD's recent IHT beneficiary loan comment), so not even worthy of my scorn.
So we need to say something knowledgeable in order to deserve the honour of receiving your scorn?
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
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.