Failure of SDLT Mitigation Scheme - help please?

AdrianC

ceivegz wrote: »

How is exploiting a loophole fraud?

Because the "loophole" being exploited does not (and never did) apply in any legitimate way, and all those involved know that damn well. It's purely and simply a paperwork attempt to wavey-hand the taxman into thinking black is white.

mrginge

ceivegz wrote: »

How is exploiting a loophole fraud? Also, if anyone has been fraudulent it's not the clients (call them gullible, naive, what ever) but the tax advisors, solicitors and financial advisors who have been marketing, advising and making a lot of money in fees from this so-called "fraud" ... they should be struck off by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Law Society and made to pay back all of the fees collected.

Well it isn't fraud.
It is tax evasion though.

You're right that those who set up these schemes should also be held accountable in some way, however it was no secret that they were under scrutiny and could be declared illegal.
If people don't do the due diligence, or do do it but still decide to proceed given the risks then there really is no one else to blame when it goes wrong.

Angry_of_Upminster

girlclaire771 wrote: »

We are not talking about a moral or ethical issue here but a legal one - we were advised that legally it was a viable scheme. Unfortunately the company that gave us that advice no longer exists. The law has been changed retrospectively. We were playing by the rules, the rules have now been changed. By the way I don't feel angry, I am resigned to this even if it means I am now forced to sell my house and move my family because of the poor advice of professionals. I hope that nobody else gets caught out like this. Thanks for your comments.

Tell me the name of the solicitor that advised you in this transaction. Or to your knowledge did ITS involve any solicitor. There have been developments this past couple of weeks which may be important.

theartfullodger

Hmmnnn:

'twer boot on the other foot & this thread be a "Failure of Benefits optimisation (ESA, DLA, PIP & HB/LHA etc) Scheme - please help", would I be right in guessing most decent people would have little or no sympathy, indeed hope those involved were sanctioned/prosecuted??

Herewith HMRC fraud reporting, including link to report benefit fraud..
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/reportingfraud/

Cheers & best wishes to all, including those who disagree with me.

Cathy2

If we all get together and report the financial advisor and solicitor to the police they will take action against these scam artists
Cathy2

AnnLML

It is terrible so many have been mislead - in some cases fraudulently - but the fact so many are in the same position means we can form a compelling group action. We already are in the process of building a case against those involved with the introduction, advice and implementation of the various ITS tax mitigation schemes surrounding Stamp Duty Land Tax on property purchases and have a legal team on the case. There is strength in numbers so we encourage all who feel they have been duped by these mitigation schemes to join us - google ITS Action Group to find our website with info

Brock_and_Roll

AnnLML wrote: »

It is terrible so many have been mislead - in some cases fraudulently - but the fact so many are in the same position means we can form a compelling group action. We already are in the process of building a case against those involved with the introduction, advice and implementation of the various ITS tax mitigation schemes surrounding Stamp Duty Land Tax on property purchases and have a legal team on the case. There is strength in numbers so we encourage all who feel they have been duped by these mitigation schemes to join us - google ITS Action Group to find our website with info

Go chase a different ambulance!!! Really scraping the barrel if this is the only "fight for justice" left in town!

theEnd

Is it wrong that I take pleasure from these schemes failing?

Except the scammers walk away free with all their cash!

ceivegz

giddypenguin wrote: »

The argument is 'I pay quite a lot of tax actually, so don't feel as if I need to pay this particular one'? Doesn't really stack up. Also, just because you don't feel as if you are dependent on the state, doesn't mean you aren't (legal/justice system, emergency services, politicians, national defence).

!!!!!!, do you go on trips to Dover and have a rant at people legally bringing back French wine to save on tax? He said he took part in the scheme because he was advised it was legal and described by regulated professionals as a bona fide scheme.

Our financial and legal sectors are based on integrity of information and advice. That people should be permitted to lose out (I'm talking about the large fees paid for failed schemes not the fact that they have to pay out SDLT unexpectedly) makes our financial and legal system look like something from Sub-Saharan Africa.

sputnik1957

ceivegz wrote: »

!!!!!!, do you go on trips to Dover and have a rant at people legally bringing back French wine to save on tax? He said he took part in the scheme because he was advised it was legal and described by regulated professionals as a bona fide scheme.

Our financial and legal sectors are based on integrity of information and advice. That people should be permitted to lose out (I'm talking about the large fees paid for failed schemes not the fact that they have to pay out SDLT unexpectedly) makes our financial and legal system look like something from Sub-Saharan Africa.

I got a similar impression as giddypenguin. I don't see what the relevance of being a 'net' contributor to the public purse other than its whether poster needs to pay tax or not. I have no opinion on this tax 'avoidance'. It I really think I could avoid something I would consider it.

As to being a net contributor, maybe but I can guarantee private health will not be interested in very serious or long term chronic conditions.