How about making accountants and advisers personally responsible for any issues with the tax they are saving the client? That would make them think more about the ethics of what they are doing.
I'd go one step further, why not make this a retrospective change back to 1999 so than any disputed tax liability is transferred to the accountant? That should clean up the industry and make the remaining few think more ethically, no?
I'll go one more step further, introduce an accelerated payment system where the accountant pays all the disputed liability to HMRC up front and then has to claim it back in a court. That should get any dodgy accountants out the way in quick time.
Yes, we made the effort because are facing life from the gutter now. Happy?
I suspect a lot of us now know more about that little area of taxation than some of the supposed accountants who frequent the comments section here.
We made the effort to look at the facts then we commented.
Hence, we are giving our side of the story: HMRC require retrospective legislation to crack down on schemes from 20 years ago and MPs have been assured the tax is not retrospective many times.
No, this person did less than one year of work 17 years ago.
HMRC sent a letter 14 years ago saying they didn't think it worked and this person had left the scheme 2 years previously anyway.
No further correspondence from HMRC since.
They are now enacting a law to tax that income on top of any income I have in 2019 (so likely to be higher rate even though the original earnings waould have been in lower rate) or settle now with 17 years interest applied at tax rate in year drawn.
Both taxes are likely to have IHT applied which isn't allowed to use the 325k limit. and works out about 1% of total per year.
What is the time limit for Regulation 81, can that also be used for the past 20 years?
It would appear from your comment of "There again most of my clients would be delighted to be paying higher rate tax." you're falling for the myth that all scheme users were higly paid. I can assure you none of my time in a scheme was at the higher rate.
The issue here is that because of HMRC inaction I have the tax liability plus 17 years of interest to pay plus IHT on the loan plus whatever HMRC decide to add because they can.
Some in a similar position will have 20 years interest to pay.
I'm not expecting you to shed a tear, I just want to show that not all tax avoiders are multi-millionaires and show how people are being treated.
Some made a mistake a long time ago. In my case, HMRC did nothing for 14 years and have now introduced 20 year retrospective legislation on arrangements to cover their inaction.
Having an article like this published which effectively does HMRC's job for them with no analysis of the situation is poor journalism at best.
Thank you AnnAccountant, I'm glad you sleep well even with your outlook on life. I wish your clients well if ever they are investigated by HMRC, I'm sure you'll back them very well.
If I could be so bold, could I have tne benefit of your boundless taxation knowledge and as you if a scheme was "obviously abusive" and "contrived" why has it taken HMRC 17 years to deal with it and requires retrospective taxation to do so?
Your considered response is appreciated and I look forward to your next batch of insults and not answering the question.
To those who bought into the "too good to be true schemes" who always come out of the woodwork in the comments of DR articles:
Hopefully you had fun taking the tax-free money down the shops or the car dealership or whatever you did with it.
Hopefully you didn't use any hospitals during the years you felt you were above paying income tax and you didn't have any kids in school.
Your day of reckoning is coming. Slowly but surely.
You were greedy and stupid and you know it. So put the violin away and face up to your mistakes.
Thank you for coming out of the woodwork when punitive retrospective tax is mentioned.
I hope you enjoy bellowing insults at to up to 40,000 "stupid" and "greedy" people and their families in despair.
I hope you sleep well at night knowing you've set the world to rights with vast knowledge using your insults at people who've made a mistake and are simply informing the wider world of their situation.
I assume you're an accountant, so I hope your clients never find out who you are or your day of reckoning might be faster and more sure than ours.
The Murray case put the tax liability on the employer not the employee, why was that not mentioned?
New retroactive/retrospective legislation attempts to transfer that liability to the employee.
It would be nice if AccountingWEB experts wrote an article to highlight the retrospective element rather than just toe the HMRC line.
I clearly have no sense, I believed salesmen from the promoters and Counsel's Opinion in the scheme I used. You did will to advise clients against using the schemes, well done.
I assume your clients must also have no financial sense, like myself, as they required your advice so avoid the so-called "get rich quick" schemes.
It's all obvious to a professional like yourself but I thought at the time there were regulations on such schemes or HMRC would investigate and close any "get rich quick" schemes. HMRC were in a win-win situation as they could rack up the interest and penalties on tax owed when schemes were closed by litigation.
What actually appears to have happened is that HMRC haven't bothered with litigation and have introduced a retrospective application of the Part 7A amendments to ITEPA to cover up them not even bothering to investigate the schemes at all.
I suppose the PPI scandal was obvious to you but many were caught out as has been well publicised.
Is it possible you could expand on your advice to repay the loan? In the previous paragraph you say the scheme promoters are nowhere to be seen yet you suggest repaying a loan to people associated with them (or maybe the loan was a sham and it is them behind the scenes?)
Would you trust these scheme promoters?
It's interesting you concentrated on my use of the word "families" in my post.
See the HMRC claims in the "Tackling disguised remuneration" document published on 30 March 2016
Impact on individuals, households and families
The measure is not expected to impact on family formation, stability or breakdown.
It's almost as if HMRC were cooking the books in a maniuplative way to avoid garnering any sympathy for scheme users. I would venture they also obscured underlying facts so as to fast-track retrospective application of amendments to the ITEPA legislation through Parliament without MPs actually realising the impact it would have on 40,000 familes.
I am merely trying to explain that myself and many others will, in fact, suffer family instability at best and breakdown at worst.
I agree, "families" did not use the yet-to-be-proven-as-tax-avoidance schemes. "Families" will be impacted by not giving scheme users a fair hearing on whether such schemes are tax avoidance. If a fair hearing deems they are tax avoidance then "families" will still be impacted but at least the heartache will be fairly served out.
No, I clearly did not mean to say "intelligent, but greedy, adult" I meant to say "families" as I did.
No, I think the "families" will bear the consequences of punitive retropective application of an amendment to the ITEPA legislation introduced by HMRC in the 2019 charge. I also believe this is a quick and dirty way to cover up their inaction on investigating the legality of so-called schemes using disguised remuneration.
Thank you for your time in reading my posts.