No To Retro Tax - Ongoing battle against S58 FA2008

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Letter received from HMRC

Our advisors CCW received a letter from HMRC yesterday, covering the fraud angle. They have backtracked a bit from what was said at the meeting.

But what is clear is they still don't get it.

They have latched on to the use of the word “sham” in the original letter from CCW.

Sham in the legal sense would mean all parties knowingly entered into false arrangements.

That is clearly not the case here. When we used the scheme we believed it was a fully legal structure, and we were told it was backed by Counsel opinion. I have no doubt whatsoever that MTM also believed this.

Why on earth would any of us leave a perfectly legal structure like a Ltd Co, even with the fear of IR35, to join a sham? It's utterly preposterous.

At the time we were using the scheme we had no reason to doubt being self-employed.

It's only recently, and ironically as a result of HMRC's own actions in the George case, that we have been advised that this wasn't the case and that there was an agency contract. It's hardly our fault if HMRC shot themselves in the foot last year by settling with George.

Once again HMRC are trying to make us pay the price for their mistakes.

[OnYourBikeGB]

Letter received from HMRC

Our advisors CCW received a letter from HMRC yesterday, covering the fraud angle. They have backtracked a bit from what was said at the meeting.

But what is clear is they still don't get it.

They have latched on to the use of the word “sham” in the original letter from CCW.

Sham in the legal sense would mean all parties knowingly entered into false arrangements.

That is clearly not the case here. When we used the scheme we believed it was a fully legal structure, and we were told it was backed by Counsel opinion. I have no doubt whatsoever that MTM also believed this.

Why on earth would any of us leave a perfectly legal structure like a Ltd Co, even with the fear of IR35, to join a sham? It's utterly preposterous.

At the time we were using the scheme we had no reason to doubt being self-employed.

It's only recently, and ironically as a result of HMRC's own actions in the George case, that we have been advised that this wasn't the case and that there was an agency contract. It's hardly our fault if HMRC shot themselves in the foot last year by settling with George.

Once again HMRC are trying to make us pay the price for their mistakes.

Possibly a stupid question, but does CCWs use of the word drop us in it from a legal perspective no matter how patently daft it is?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Possibly a stupid question, but does CCWs use of the word drop us in it from a legal perspective no matter how patently daft it is?

No, it would only be an issue if we put that forward as the basis of an FTT appeal. Which obviously we won't because, as you say, it's patently untrue.

[Morlock]

Possibly a stupid question, but does CCWs use of the word drop us in it from a legal perspective no matter how patently daft it is?

No. Read this:
http://www.kessler.co.uk/wp-content/...not_a_sham.pdf

Extract:
"Sham is a straightforward but limited doctrine, which does not help the
Revenue to defeat properly carried out tax avoidance schemes.
Now it will be readily perceived that the participants in virtually every tax
avoidance scheme have not the slightest incentive to produce a sham. The strategies depend for their effectiveness on the steps taken being real. ...
Given that there is no difficulty in taking the artificial steps, there is no
point whatsoever in not taking them but in merely pretending to take them."

[lucozade]

So knowing what HMRC know about our intentions and the likelihood of success how on Earth can they justify sending out any more APNs.

I know they have never played fair but this is just getting silly.

[nevergiveup]

Can't wait for the next one!

I preferred the old one!

It's called clutching at straws, and that's about all HMRC have left!

[nevergiveup]

So knowing what HMRC know about our intentions and the likelihood of success how on Earth can they justify sending out any more APNs.

I know they have never played fair but this is just getting silly.

Because not everyone will know about NTRT and some people may cough up the dough (I guess).

[eek]

So knowing what HMRC know about our intentions and the likelihood of success how on Earth can they justify sending out any more APNs.

I know they have never played fair but this is just getting silly.

They want the surcharges from those unable to pay up immediately....

[lucozade]

They want the surcharges from those unable to pay up immediately....

And that is just disgusting. I hope we can argue that point later.

[eek]

No To Retro Tax - Ongoing battle against S58 FA2008

And that is just disgusting. I hope we can argue that point later.

To a certain extent I was being facetious as in reality all hmrc are currently doing is following procedure.

However the end result is exactly the same. If you have an apn and pay up now, you just loss access to the money and little harm has been done. However if you don't pay up we don't know if the surcharges would still be due if the supposed tax wasn't due