Failure of SDLT Mitigation Scheme - help please?

System

AdrianC wrote: »

At the time the OP bought into it, it was a scheme of ill-repute and dubious legality.
HMRC took a stand on it, and decided that it was definitely illegal at the time it was being sold, including to the OP. They then decided how to enforce that position. They _could_ have gone after individuals, but - instead - they created a blanket enforcement. There was no retrospective legislation that rendered a legal scheme illegal - it merely clarified the dubious legality as illegal all along.

The change in legislation is a matter of fact.

Little_Dave

As a point of clarification it was because ITS's scheme was faulty that it has failed rather than due to all such schemes being illegal. Therefore it has now been assessed as undefendable against appeal.

00ec25

Walcott wrote: »

While everything you have said is correct, I would have to disagree on the basis that we have more information now than at the time when the OP entered into the transaction. HMRC have been warning since 2006 when anti avoidancne legislation first originated that they regarded SDLT mitigation as a prime target - the OP entered into the transaction well after such warnings were issued. OP was therefore simply gambling - never a wise course of action against HMRC

While you have outlined the technicalities, the reason the OP is in this situation is because of retrospective legislation changes. That is the only evidence of non compliance here. you are still misusing compliance. No assurancne was ever given either for or against compliance but a clear warning was given that future action would be taken. A legal precedent to clarify this was then undertaken in 2012 - and that case took years to come to Tribunal
It was HMRC's own decision to change legislation and as far as I can see it never pursued any individuals prior to the retrospective change.incorrect. see below. Agreed that is after the Op's transaction date, but I again refer you to the above para - forewarning of intention is forearmed ...

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/avoidance/spotlights14.htm

also note well "HMRC is aware that some intermediate companies have already been dissolved, although it's possible that the company may be liable to SDLT. Where this has happened, HMRC will still seek to recover SDLT rightfully due."

savingPennies_3

girlclaire771 - have you joined the private message group set up by the 000's others in the same position as you? Contact BH Tax and/or Smith & Williamson Solicitors as they are representing creditors who and they should send you the link for the forum. Good luck!

DaftyDuck

savingPennies wrote: »

girlclaire771 - have you joined the private message group set up by the 000's others in the same position as you? Contact BH Tax and/or Smith & Williamson Solicitors as they are representing creditors who and they should send you the link for the forum. Good luck!

Um... are they charging a fee upfront for this service?

System

BH Tax previously advised ITS clients!!!!!!!!!

Chillfactor

Hi just wanting an update on what your latest development is. Have you ended up paying the stamp duty plus interest now? I did the same some 10 months ago. SDLT was mitigated but now I've had a letter from hmrc asking under what grounds did the mitigation apply. They've asked for further documents but I am deeply concerned now that it's all failing and we'll have to pay up.

nobblyned

Good, serves you right.

jamespetts

If you were falsely told that there was insurance when in fact there was not, this is a fraud and it is possible that you (and possibly thousands of others) have a right of action against individuals rather than the defunct company, albeit this may well be of limited use if said individuals do not have much money themselves or you cannot remember who they are. You might all want to club together and instruct one firm of solicitors between you to investigate the various possibilities.

jamie11

dacouch wrote: »

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

I don't believe a bona fide insurance company would honour a policy that was based on a fraudulent act.