Failure of SDLT Mitigation Scheme - help please?

booksurr

ceivegz wrote: »

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.

people who lost out did so because they ignored signs that those giving advice were on the fringes of integrity

HMRC made it very clear to the whole sector over 15 years ago that they always regarded these schemes as untested and that one day HMRC would test them and would expect them to fail. Financial services firms who do not have sub Saharan ethics knew that and never offered these schemes to start with.

As with any population there were others who do have sub Saharan ethics and it is those who have scammed the people who failed to look beyond the question why: isn't everyone doing this if it is that foolproof. A fool is easily parted from their money when the fool only listens to what they want to hear.

giddypenguin

Ha - that moment you read a comment and think 'I agree with that' then realise you wrote it (ages ago)!

Anyway, your reply to my post was:

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 have no problem with people going to France and legally bringing back wine at a reduced tax, although I prefer mine from Italy.

But OP didn't take advice from regulated professionals - they took it from con artists. They didn't do their due diligence by asking HMRC or taking independent advice. When I go abroad I will check how much wine im allowed to bring back with customs- not some company who has a vested interest in giving me bad advice (because they get a percentage of my 'savings').

Be a good citizen and pay your due tax.

PedroMogga

Just a quick update on this.

It would appear that the invoices that ITS raised (that clients paid) included the usual VAT amount (nothing new there). Therefore the Administrators have rightfully requested that the HMRC refund the VAT amounts as effectively no legal transaction took place.

After the HMRC originally agreed (over £2m apparently) they have now said they aren't going to pay anything back. The Administrators are rightfully taking them to court.

It has to be said, HMRC are taking the complete pi$$ there. So the clients (stupidly) made payments (including the VAT) that the HMRC then effectively made illegal (for some, 5 years after the transaction) and now refuse to pay the related VAT back.

Ouch.

AdrianC

PedroMogga wrote: »

Just a quick update on this.

It would appear that the invoices that ITS raised (that clients paid) included the usual VAT amount (nothing new there). Therefore the Administrators have rightfully requested that the HMRC refund the VAT amounts as effectively no legal transaction took place.

After the HMRC originally agreed (over £2m apparently) they have now said they aren't going to pay anything back. The Administrators are rightfully taking them to court.

It has to be said, HMRC are taking the complete pi$$ there. So the clients (stupidly) made payments (including the VAT) that the HMRC then effectively made illegal (for some, 5 years after the transaction) and now refuse to pay the related VAT back.

Ouch.

Hello, Mr Taxman, I tried to cheat you, but you caught it and squished it. Because it was squished, so never happened, can I have the VAT back, please?

Seriously? I mean... really?

theartfullodger

AdrianC wrote: »

Hello, Mr Taxman, I tried to cheat you, but you caught it and squished it. Because it was squished, so never happened, can I have the VAT back, please?

Seriously? I mean... really?

+1: Absolutely.......

More front than Brighton...

mrginge

PedroMogga wrote: »

It has to be said, HMRC are taking the complete pi$$ there. So the clients (stupidly) made payments (including the VAT) that the HMRC then effectively made illegal (for some, 5 years after the transaction) and now refuse to pay the related VAT back.

Ouch.

What utter utter utter bobbins.

kingstreet

Presumably, the VAT was charged on the service provided at the time, not the outcome.

Therefore, HMRC would appear correct in maintaining that the VAT was correctly collected.

If you pay a solicitor for advice and the advice is later proved incorrect, I don't believe you get to claim back the VAT paid on the fee...

PedroMogga

kingstreet wrote: »

Presumably, the VAT was charged on the service provided at the time, not the outcome.

Therefore, HMRC would appear correct in maintaining that the VAT was correctly collected.

If you pay a solicitor for advice and the advice is later proved incorrect, I don't believe you get to claim back the VAT paid on the fee...

So presumably you believe that Smith & Williamson (the Administrators) are wasting their time with appealing the HMRC decision not to cough up the money? They reckon it will take over a year for a final decision. Probably find that the Administrators use all remaining funds and the ITS clients get nothing.

theartfullodger

PedroMogga wrote: »

..... Probably find that the Administrators use all remaining funds and the ITS clients get nothing.

So people who were trying to wriggle out of paying their taxes get to suffer?? Sounds reasonable to me.

Karma even..

kingstreet

PedroMogga wrote: »

So presumably you believe that Smith & Williamson (the Administrators) are wasting their time with appealing the HMRC decision not to cough up the money? They reckon it will take over a year for a final decision. Probably find that the Administrators use all remaining funds and the ITS clients get nothing.

The funny thing about free, public forums is you get people expressing an opinion from all walks of life, all kinds of backgrounds and experience.

I've just worked in financial services for 32 out of my 50 years on the planet. It doesn't give me any particular insight, just an ability to assess data quickly and come to what appears to be a reasonable and common sense conclusion.

I don't know what arguments HMRC will put up but the first one I thought of, after about fifteen seconds, was the one I posted.

Will it work? Who knows? If there's enough at stake someone might decide to take it to the Supreme Court...