HMRC Enquiry Letters for Choice Premier / Berwick Associates/ Runnymede Services
+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 ... LastLast
Posts 21 to 30 of 132
  1. #21

    More time posting than coding


    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    330
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    8
    Likes (Given)
    6
    Likes (Received)
    49

    Default

    U could have receipts from broker but did any other broker did a FX transaction at that rate? Did the broker do any transactions for same FX for anyone else apart from contractors. On Internet and HMRC website u will find the historical conversion rates for all forex and can easily check if it was correct or not.

  2. #22

    More time posting than coding


    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    330
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    8
    Likes (Given)
    6
    Likes (Received)
    49

    Default

    I think very difficult to chase director on what they did but if you have a group and means to do it, sure go for it. A lot of lies were told in these cases and contractors are taking now all the pain.

    My understanding (remembering I am just another contractor) is that first check if FX rate used was correct or not? Second check money changed from one FX to another in real or was just a paper trail? U need valid legal proofs not just an email from a company which no more exist or exist in a remote place. Above two should give u enough to understand if u have a chance in court or not.

    If HMRC issues FN u have to be careful as FN basically penalises u for going to court. Which sure looks like against basic right to justice but I have not heard about a judicial review happening and HMRC/Government does give a monkey's about rights.

  3. #23

    More time posting than coding


    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    330
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    8
    Likes (Given)
    6
    Likes (Received)
    49

    Default

    Before throwing money at any legal advice or time in organising a group, just go to HMRC website and check the FX rate used is same as HMRC has on it list for the corresponding rate. That's the starting point to gauge strength of scheme.

  4. #24

    More time posting than coding


    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    330
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    8
    Likes (Given)
    6
    Likes (Received)
    49

    Default

    For my love of community here is the link: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/exrate/

  5. #25

    Nervous Newbie


    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0

    Default

    I have checked a number of FX rates and they match the rates on the FX statements I received.

    If you use x-rates.com/historical you can lookup the exact date that is on the FX Statement.

  6. #26

    More time posting than coding


    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    330
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    8
    Likes (Given)
    6
    Likes (Received)
    49

    Default

    I guess that's great news for u guys. Now if u have proof that FX was converted and physically exists, u guys should not settle.
    1) Save and pay APN. HMRC will have to refund if they lose in court what u pay against APN - once settled no refund possible even if scheme wins.
    2) Make a group and get accountant and solicitor to start preparations for filling to tribunal (6 month process in it self)

    For accountant get someone like Saloes who has knowledge of these matters.
    Above is just my view and I am not qualified to advise. I am just another contractor in another scheme sharing my view.

  7. #27

    Super poster


    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,832
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    41
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    180

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by retrodeath View Post
    At the moment it seems to me that things hinge on whether the forex transactions were real or just a paper trail created by someone. It seems that regardless of what you have to prove, realness will need to be accepted by HMRC and I suspect they're going to play hard ball with this.
    For good reason - they have won cases in the past because they were able to convince a judge that the measures were totally artificial. Having the correct paperwork will help, but you can never be 100% sure until a judge looks at it and makes a decision.

    Quote Originally Posted by retrodeath View Post
    I suspect they have the power to decide what is real? I presume that can be challenged legally.
    They don't - a judge decides. At the court hearing to determine the scheme's legality, you can challenge practically anything HMRC state - whether it is a successful challenge is another matter.

    But... for an APN calculation, as the currently law stands - no - you can't challenge them. You can ask HMRC ever so nicely if they wouldn't awfully mind looking at the numbers again, but you have no judicial right of appeal for the APN. You have to pay up, then sue them for the money back.

  8. #28

    Godlike


    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,650
    Thanks (Given)
    7
    Thanks (Received)
    241
    Likes (Given)
    9
    Likes (Received)
    617

    Default

    There is no actual cost in going to the first-tier tribunal. If you represent yourself it doesn't cost anything, not that I would recommend that.

    It's only if you want to hire someone to represent you that it can get expensive, especially if you want a leading tax QC.

    Now this may sound dumb but it might be worth approaching Accountax who represented Boyle. Although they lost the case, they should be able to assess whether you have a better chance. At least they're already familiar with this type of scheme. They should also be able to give you an idea of costs.

    The person from Accountax who acted for Boyle at the FTT was Sian Woods.

  9. #29

    Super poster


    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,832
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    41
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    180

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by retrodeath View Post
    They will take the very money I could use to defend myself.
    First rule of warfare - degrade the enemy's ability to strike back.

    Actually I kind of made that up, but it sounds applicable.

  10. #30

    Super poster


    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,832
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    41
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    180

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DonkeyRhubarb View Post
    Now this may sound dumb but it might be worth approaching Accountax who represented Boyle. Although they lost the case, they should be able to assess whether you have a better chance. At least they're already familiar with this type of scheme. They should also be able to give you an idea of costs.
    Reminds me of this quote. DR has a point - having been spanked, Accountax will know what the pitfalls are.

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelJordan
    I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. 26 times, I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.