HMRC’s Latest Attack of Offshore Arrangements - LexisNexis .
The deadline for making disclosures under HMRC’s New Disclosure Opportunity is now upon us. If a disclosure is not successfully made by 31 March 2010, your clients won’t benefit from the fixed 10% penalty.
You may also need to advise clients who decided not to use the offshore disclosure facility in its first instance. HMRC has once again indicated it fully intends to pursue these people and that this will be their last opportunity to disclose. You need to consider how to minimise their tax liability and reduce the likelihood of an enquiry.
This breakfast briefing, hosted by leading experts will give practical guidance on successfully making disclosures and explain the steps to take for those outside the facility.
All for the very reasonable sum of £194.35, VAT inclusive.
Which is a bargain compared to what the Revenue might expect.
Curious that you may act for people who decide not to confess by the way: square that with your money laundering reporting obligations please......
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
And how delightful that a former HMRC tax inspector will be one of the experts present to guide those in attendance through the ways in which they can dodge the rules…
An interesting question…
Logically anybody who didn’t previously take advantage of the disclosure opportunity AND who was known not to have done so, has presumably been reported but the professional advisor hasn’t been able to tell his client that he’s been reported under the tipping-off rules. So that’s how advisors might still be acting for those who have not previously confessed.
However, if somebody comes forward now, without the advisor knowing that they should have previously done so, then its now clear that they should have come forward previously. They were therefore previously breaking the law so should advisors now be reporting their clients for not previously coming forward when they have now decided to do so this time ?
Not exactly sraightforward !
What’s the penance? Three Hail Marys?
I really don’t understand why it needs intellectualising.
Surely the eradication of evasion, the interception of criminal funding and good system governance dictates that transparency is inbuilt.
Wouldn’t that be a good thing? Isn’t that aspirational? Beyond politics?
Cor lummy, I’m so naive!