SDLT Mitigation schemes.......buy cheap, buy twice!
Discussion
Jobbo said:
PugwasHDJ80 said:
You are allowed to pay it direct- just most law firms will pay it on your behalf - which when you are moving house is very helpful.
If you're buying with a mortgage, there won't be an opportunity to pay it yourself; the firm will be giving an undertaking to the mortgagee that they will submit the SDLT return, so they will need to pay it.Countrywide were charging £75+vat to complete these on top of their already expensive fee structure.
Kindly note
1. We did not enter into any mitigation scheme
2. We paid our stamp duty in full
3. We did not "hope to dodge the fee/tax"
I am sure there are other people here who like us paid all our stamp duty, didn't take part in mitigation, didn't get any refund but who now have to pay this tax twice.
1. We did not enter into any mitigation scheme
2. We paid our stamp duty in full
3. We did not "hope to dodge the fee/tax"
I am sure there are other people here who like us paid all our stamp duty, didn't take part in mitigation, didn't get any refund but who now have to pay this tax twice.
Edited by blues for uk on Wednesday 7th January 09:03
I'm sorry you're so upset blues. This is a discussion forum and people do make mistakes on understanding. In a thread about people (the OP, etc.) who hoped to save tax (and may have been badly/incorrectly advised) it is odd that you don't give any leeway when you first imply that you are in the same boat and then imply that your case is straight forward fraud (which it appears to be if you paid them the money and had no idea that you were entering a tax evasion scheme.) Or should it be the other thought that they were entering a tax avoidance scheme which turned out to be tax evasion?
As for the OP I wish him good luck since after taking for that legal advice you'd expect it to be pretty water tight with them charging a 50% of the saving fee.
As for the OP I wish him good luck since after taking for that legal advice you'd expect it to be pretty water tight with them charging a 50% of the saving fee.
blues for uk said:
Arc/Abode didn't tell us what Arc/Abode was doing at the time so we feel duped, we were misled, we have been let down, and now we have lost a lot of money. But what Arc/Abode was doing was perfectly tax legal at the time that Arc/Abode was doing it. We didn't understand or know what Arc/Abode was doing but I am afraid that's all history now.
Later on in time, HMRC subsequently won a tax test case against a wealthy individual who was using a SDLT mitigation scheme (it turns out Arc/Abode were using the same type of scheme).
I can't tell whether your purchase used their scheme without your consent or didn't use the scheme and they simply ripped you off. But I think it's pretty clear that what they offered was not 'tax legal' at the time, and if you weren't in it/weren't aware you were in it, I'm not sure why you'd make that assertion anyway.Later on in time, HMRC subsequently won a tax test case against a wealthy individual who was using a SDLT mitigation scheme (it turns out Arc/Abode were using the same type of scheme).
The thread title does refer specifically to mitigation schemes, which like RudeBoy I always advised clients were not a good idea. If you have genuinely been ripped off by Arc separate to an SDLT mitigation scheme, then your issue is somewhat different.
As posted above by another it is sometimes hard to get a full understanding of things on here and certainly the reason why I am happy to point people in the right direction from time to time but rarely give outright advice.
I am getting the impression, rightly or wrongly, that there are people in three camps.
Camp 1 are those that either sought out people who dealt with SDLT mitigation schemes and used these. i.e. they bought into one of these schemes.
Camp 2 are those that were not really planning on doing such a thing but were advised of their existence and took the decision to enter into one when it was 'sold' to them.
Camp 3 seems to be a new one where there is a suggestion that some people paid conveyancers the full SDLT due but that unilaterally the people they paid the money to then instigated their scheme, paying nothing or little to HMRC and pocketing the money that should have been paid in SDLT.
Now if Camp three really exists and is not just a product of misreading or miss interpretation that is a whole new kettle of fish and, to my eyes, far more concerning than even a sharp (and ultimately incorrect) interpretation of the legislation applicable to this area.
I am getting the impression, rightly or wrongly, that there are people in three camps.
Camp 1 are those that either sought out people who dealt with SDLT mitigation schemes and used these. i.e. they bought into one of these schemes.
Camp 2 are those that were not really planning on doing such a thing but were advised of their existence and took the decision to enter into one when it was 'sold' to them.
Camp 3 seems to be a new one where there is a suggestion that some people paid conveyancers the full SDLT due but that unilaterally the people they paid the money to then instigated their scheme, paying nothing or little to HMRC and pocketing the money that should have been paid in SDLT.
Now if Camp three really exists and is not just a product of misreading or miss interpretation that is a whole new kettle of fish and, to my eyes, far more concerning than even a sharp (and ultimately incorrect) interpretation of the legislation applicable to this area.
Rude-boy said:
Camp 3 seems to be a new one where there is a suggestion that some people paid conveyancers the full SDLT due but that unilaterally the people they paid the money to then instigated their scheme, paying nothing or little to HMRC and pocketing the money that should have been paid in SDLT.
Would it be possible for a client/house buyer to be entered into such a scheme (whether against his will or not) without the client signing a document?TA14 said:
Would it be possible for a client/house buyer to be entered into such a scheme (whether against his will or not) without the client signing a document?
If the firm is that dodgy, it could do so - they could submit an erroneous SDLT return without getting it signed off in advance by the client.This presupposes that the 'scheme' doesn't require additional documentation to be entered into, though. I posted a link earlier in this thread to the chap from Arc simply stating an incorrect price on the SDLT return for his own house purchase, so if that's the extent of the 'scheme' they entered into, it's simply the solicitor lying on the SDLT form.
Edited by Jobbo on Wednesday 7th January 10:14
Jobbo said:
TA14 said:
Would it be possible for a client/house buyer to be entered into such a scheme (whether against his will or not) without the client signing a document?
If the firm is that dodgy, it could do so - they could submit an erroneous SDLT return without getting it signed off in advance by the client.This presupposes that the 'scheme' doesn't require additional documentation to be entered into, though. I posted a link earlier in this thread to the chap from Arc simply stating an incorrect price on the SDLT return for his own house purchase, so if that's the extent of the 'scheme' they entered into, it's simply the solicitor lying on the SDLT form.
TA14 said:
Rude-boy said:
Camp 3 seems to be a new one where there is a suggestion that some people paid conveyancers the full SDLT due but that unilaterally the people they paid the money to then instigated their scheme, paying nothing or little to HMRC and pocketing the money that should have been paid in SDLT.
Would it be possible for a client/house buyer to be entered into such a scheme (whether against his will or not) without the client signing a document?We were approached by a few 'providers' who were keen to get us to pay them a set up fee and then a case by case fee for using their scheme. The conversation on if this was something we should do lasted less than a minute as all the conveyancers had already independently considered the pros and cons and that it wasn't something our firm would like to get involved in. When it comes to tax and the like we are very much conservative - my personal attitude is that I would rather get it right but if there is any issue I would rather over pay a little than under pay a penny and have HMRC on my back for evermore. Add to this that these schemes always sounded 'to good to be true' and that if they were really all they were cracked up to be then the entire industry would have adopted them wholesale and the rules changed to stop them!!!
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/5045940.article?utm_so...
An another firm that thought it was brighter than it was gets a knock.
What is not said in this report is that this Firm is also highly likely to now be removed from almost all, if not all, lender panels and so the conveyancing arm is dead.
An another firm that thought it was brighter than it was gets a knock.
What is not said in this report is that this Firm is also highly likely to now be removed from almost all, if not all, lender panels and so the conveyancing arm is dead.
Minor update, not a lot to report though.
Kennedys said:
We have reported to XL on the circumstances of your claim, but we do not yet have instructions. As you may recall, XL’s position is reserved as to whether Abode’s policy covers these claims, and their enquiries are ongoing.
We hope to be in a position to revert to you shortly, but at the moment we are not able to give you a firm timescale.
We hope to be in a position to revert to you shortly, but at the moment we are not able to give you a firm timescale.
Does the beg the question, why oh why, cant you go direct to Abode's insurers XL?
Instead you are having to go via an intermediary - Kennedy Solicitors - who according to their response are still awaiting instruction from XL.
Then there's the confusion over whether Abode was adequately insured for these claims? Really this is a question for punters to ask XL directly rather than get Kennedys to figure out
My previous posts led to me receiving abusive comments from some on this forum; there are some so called 'professional' (are they really?) intermediaries milling around this forum; my views have been expressed before; but not well received by those of duplicity.
Regardless of academic arguments over whether people are in "camp 1, 2, 3", reputations of solicitors and other so called professional intermediaries have been tarnished forever.
Instead you are having to go via an intermediary - Kennedy Solicitors - who according to their response are still awaiting instruction from XL.
Then there's the confusion over whether Abode was adequately insured for these claims? Really this is a question for punters to ask XL directly rather than get Kennedys to figure out
My previous posts led to me receiving abusive comments from some on this forum; there are some so called 'professional' (are they really?) intermediaries milling around this forum; my views have been expressed before; but not well received by those of duplicity.
Regardless of academic arguments over whether people are in "camp 1, 2, 3", reputations of solicitors and other so called professional intermediaries have been tarnished forever.
Edited by blues for uk on Saturday 31st January 09:38
You're quite right tonker but this thread is kinda gone past the apportioning of blame stage .
Hindsight tells me I was a bit of a prick to even consider using this scheme and I fully admit that. You live n learn.
I'm pretty much resigned to being told tough s
t, if I get anything back from anyone then it'll be a bonus. Hopefully this thread might stop someone else falling into the same trap, and to ensure they use a decent solicitor in the first place ie. Not a dirt cheap one.
Hindsight tells me I was a bit of a prick to even consider using this scheme and I fully admit that. You live n learn.
I'm pretty much resigned to being told tough s
t, if I get anything back from anyone then it'll be a bonus. Hopefully this thread might stop someone else falling into the same trap, and to ensure they use a decent solicitor in the first place ie. Not a dirt cheap one. dave_s13 said:
You're quite right tonker but this thread is kinda gone past the apportioning of blame stage .
Hindsight tells me I was a bit of a prick to even consider using this scheme and I fully admit that. You live n learn.
I'm pretty much resigned to being told tough st, if I get anything back from anyone then it'll be a bonus. Hopefully this thread might stop someone else falling into the same trap, and to ensure they use a decent solicitor in the first place ie. Not a dirt cheap one.
Followed you through this thread from the beginning and I am gutted for you mate. They really sold it well to me, assured me of the risk free nature, 'we're professionals, in a position to advise etc etc'' and despite me being of the wary nature they were very convincing. Luckily family members who practice law warned me off it, but had they not been there... Hindsight tells me I was a bit of a prick to even consider using this scheme and I fully admit that. You live n learn.
I'm pretty much resigned to being told tough s
t, if I get anything back from anyone then it'll be a bonus. Hopefully this thread might stop someone else falling into the same trap, and to ensure they use a decent solicitor in the first place ie. Not a dirt cheap one. 
blues for uk said:
Does the beg the question, why oh why, cant you go direct to Abode's insurers XL?
Instead you are having to go via an intermediary - Kennedy Solicitors - who according to their response are still awaiting instruction from XL.
Then there's the confusion over whether Abode was adequately insured for these claims? Really this is a question for punters to ask XL directly rather than get Kennedys to figure out
My previous posts led to me receiving abusive comments from some on this forum; there are some so called 'professional' (are they really?) intermediaries milling around this forum; my views have been expressed before; but not well received by those of duplicity.
Regardless of academic arguments over whether people are in "camp 1, 2, 3", reputations of solicitors and other so called professional intermediaries have been tarnished forever.
Kennedys aren't an intermediary. They are a law firm appointed to act on behalf of XL. They will investigate the claims on behalf of XL and make recommendations based on the legal position. They are paying Kennedys to do this for them. It is then up to XL how they choose to act. This is the case in many other areas of commercial law.Instead you are having to go via an intermediary - Kennedy Solicitors - who according to their response are still awaiting instruction from XL.
Then there's the confusion over whether Abode was adequately insured for these claims? Really this is a question for punters to ask XL directly rather than get Kennedys to figure out
My previous posts led to me receiving abusive comments from some on this forum; there are some so called 'professional' (are they really?) intermediaries milling around this forum; my views have been expressed before; but not well received by those of duplicity.
Regardless of academic arguments over whether people are in "camp 1, 2, 3", reputations of solicitors and other so called professional intermediaries have been tarnished forever.
Edited by blues for uk on Saturday 31st January 09:38
Edited by MrHargreaves on Monday 2nd February 14:04
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff