.png)
.png)
Did you notice this odd posting on the HMRC website a few days ago (tinyurl.com/y5crh6by): ‘Tax avoidance schemes have been named for the first time by HMRC as users are warned they could face large tax bills. HMRC has today advised anyone involved in [names redacted] to withdraw from them as soon as possible to prevent building up a large tax bill.’
I assumed that the ‘names redacted’ was an editorial slip, but that is not the case. The history of the post says: ‘Details of the named schemes have been redacted in line with the requirements of the Finance Act 2021, one year after publication.’
This creates an awkward situation. Anybody looking at this site will see a warning to withdraw from schemes without being told which ones. That cannot be right. Parliament can’t have intended a situation where for a year taxpayers would be told which schemes were a problem but afterwards they would have to work it out for themselves. The 12-month restriction does not apply to the publication of details of the scheme.
I don’t entirely blame HMRC for this – it is a consequence of the way that the law has developed. The DOTAS rules keep changing and have deviated considerably from what was originally enacted. The POTAS and enablers rules have been woven into those rules as have the 2022 changes. The result is now a complete hotchpotch which doesn’t hang together and, as we see from the website, creates considerable confusion.
The whole thing needs looking at again so that a single coherent set of rules is enacted. HMRC has made great strides in alerting taxpayers to be vigilant about tax planning arrangements. But publishing warnings with names redacted brings the whole system into disrepute.
If you do one thing...
