Failure of SDLT Mitigation Scheme - help please?

dacouch

silvercar wrote: »

I understand now. I didn't realise that these firms charge as much as 50% of the potential gain.

In theory, shouldn't the insurance policy still be valid even if IDS are in administration? Shouldn't buyers have been given the insurance documents?

I am still puzzled how a company that charges thousands of pounds for a service that (after the initial outlay) is little more than provision of paperwork finds itself in administration. Isn't this dodgy in itself?

As for sympathies, you have lost £8k given that you should have been paying the SDLT like the rest of us did. Agreeing a payment schedule may be the best way forward.

There was no insurance policy.

These companies are now in administration as they cannot meet their liabilities to their customers.

Very easy for a Limited company to give a guarantee to their customers as if it goes wrong they can just wind the company up.

The only guarantee that is copper bottomed is one backed by a bona fide insurance policy

dacouch

If this scheme was recommended to you by your mortgage broker, you might have some recourse against them

Annie1960

dacouch wrote: »

There was no insurance policy.

These companies are now in administration as they cannot meet their liabilities to their customers.

Very easy for a Limited company to give a guarantee to their customers as if it goes wrong they can just wind the company up.

The only guarantee that is copper bottomed is one backed by a bona fide insurance policy

Exactly. An approach used by scammers, not honest professionals.

Little_Dave

Hello Claire
I am in the same position but I was recruited to the scheme by my own conveyancing solicitors who then carried out the faulty implementation which has led to the failure of the scheme. I have also discovered that ITS paid them a substantial fee on top of a similar fee they charged me for their part of operating the scheme.
In my case it was the fact that I was recommended to join by a reputable firm of solicitors that persuaded me to join up even though ITS and the solicitors together were making significantly more than I saved!

System

Annie1960 wrote: »

So you fell for a scam, and paid the scammers £8000 for their advice, and you now owe HMRC £15000.

How much was the SDLT in the first place?

I am not aware of any change of the law relating to SDLT - it has been quite clear for some time what the rates are. I don't understand how you managed to let the scammers persuade you that you could get away without paint SDLT if you purchased a property.

There have been many changes to SDLT recently!


In the case of the OP, at the point of taking the scheme it complied with tax law. However, at this point, Osbourne had already warned firms that he would not tolerate these schemes and gave them a chance to self regulate. Many of the more respected firms withdrew this product knowing that they would suffer losses. But cowboys like ITS which had no respectable reputation just milked the scheme and ran off with the money.

Annie1960

Walcott wrote: »

There have been many changes to SDLT recently!

What changes? The only ones I am aware of do not apply to ordinary house purchasers.

In the case of the OP, at the point of taking the scheme it complied with tax law. However, at this point, Osbourne had already warned firms that he would not tolerate these schemes and gave them a chance to self regulate. Many of the more respected firms withdrew this product knowing that they would suffer losses. But cowboys like ITS which had no respectable reputation just milked the scheme and ran off with the money.

It clearly did not comply with tax law, or the OP would not be in this position now. It was a bunch of chancers trying to make money from getting people to believe they could avoid or evade tax.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2551967

Post no 5 shows a list of exaggerated claims for this scheme, whereas most of the other posts in this thread are warning against it.

The OP asks for opinions on this and advice.

My opinion is that I'm glad people got caught, and my advice is to pay your taxes in future. For every person who does not pay their taxes, the rest of us have to pay more.

If this was benefit fraud, the person would also be prosecuted and have a criminal record. I'm not sure if this will happen for people to tried to evade SDLT but I hope it does to deter others in the future.

System

Annie1960 wrote: »

It clearly did not comply with tax law, or the OP would not be in this position now. It was a bunch of chancers trying to make money from getting people to believe they could avoid or evade tax.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2551967

Post no 5 shows a list of exaggerated claims for this scheme, whereas most of the other posts in this thread are warning against it.

The OP asks for opinions on this and advice.

My opinion is that I'm glad people got caught, and my advice is to pay your taxes in future. For every person who does not pay their taxes, the rest of us have to pay more.

If this was benefit fraud, the person would also be prosecuted and have a criminal record. I'm not sure if this will happen for people to tried to evade SDLT but I hope it does to deter others in the future.

You have changed my post in your quote so I presume that was a question in there. Yes, there have been changes to SDLT. There have been numerous changes including the thresholds being extended temporarily, and various reliefs being introduced and then withdrawn.


You seem to be missing the point of what actually happened here. At the point of the OP signing up for the scheme it was tax law compliant. Then in the following tax year there was retrospective change which then went back and clawed back this SDLT from people like the OP.


The OP only evaded tax after tax law was changed!!!!!!!


To be quite frank I don't really get where you are coming from on this. SDLT isn't a 'catch all' tax. You compare this to benefit fraud but this has nothing whatsoever to do with fraud. This is purely down to being naïve.


If this was fraud the OP would not have got the settlement that HMRC are offering. That offer reflects the fact that this issue arose due purely to retrospective changes and therefore penalties are being minimised.

nobblyned

Just dropping in to laugh.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

marlot

Walcott wrote: »

...At the point of the OP signing up for the scheme it was tax law compliant..

I think this is the nub of the issue. I do not believe that HMRC or the courts had said it was compliant?

I thought that these schemes were regarded as 'possibly compliant, but subject to challenge'?

mrginge

Walcott wrote: »

You seem to be missing the point of what actually happened here. At the point of the OP signing up for the scheme it was tax law compliant.

Sorry, are you saying that HMRC had specifically confirmed that these schemes were allowed?

Can you provide evidence of that please?

If, as you claim this was an allowed scheme, then why wasn't every man and his dog using it?