No To Retro Tax - Ongoing battle against S58 FA2008

[Ninja]

The not dealing with this issue globally is obviously so a coordinated response can be used on one side and force the other to deal with it as individuals. This enables a variety of tactics to be used to see which cause people to back down. E.g notices of fraud investigations, dismissal as lack of public domain info on the George settlement etc.

So, their tactic is to divide & conquer.

But united we stand !! (Sorry, all you Liverpool, City & Chelsea supporters)

[reckless]

So, their tactic is to divide & conquer.

But united we stand !! (Sorry, all you Liverpool, City & Chelsea supporters)

My thoughts exactly. It would be nice to dream that Robbers and Crooks genuinely want to deal with us as individuals and quietly sweep it all beneath carpet, but 9 years of bitter experience leads me to believe otherwise. Divide and conquer as you say, with a generous helping of prevarication to allow the goal posts to be moved yet again. And yes, I want the civil servants responsible for this to be named, shamed, tried in court and put through the same stress and misery we have all had to endure. So let's press on as one team, whilst we've got them on the back-foot.

[Resolute B]

......."if any scheme user wishes to amend their appeal grounds to this basis (ie TAA) then the position will be reviewed for that person." said the big bad wolf. Goldillocks replied "Foxtrot Oscar"

[growler]

Remember these people are civil servants, so I would recommend that you formally state in writing that the minutes are not a true & accurate account of the meeting. Just so that it's on the record.

This

I think Invisible Touch was the group's undisputed masterpiece

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Remember these people are civil servants, so I would recommend that you formally state in writing that the minutes are not a true & accurate account of the meeting. Just so that it's on the record.

Don't worry that's exactly what we are doing, and highlighting the inaccuracies and omissions.

We will also be commenting on the menacing undertone.

[bananarepublic]

Fraud

What I don't understand about what HMRC are saying is that surely if we have been fraudulent then this should have no bearing on whether we change our appeal?

It is surely something that happened when we were on the scheme so what we claim now is irrelevant?

Further to what has been said regarding COP9 investigations could we challenge these via judicial review if they arise?

[the great escape]

What I don't understand about what HMRC are saying is that surely if we have been fraudulent then this should have no bearing on whether we change our appeal?

It is surely something that happened when we were on the scheme so what we claim now is irrelevant?

Further to what has been said regarding COP9 investigations could we challenge these via judicial review if they arise?

Declaration under DOTAS, years of cross-examination, info exchanges, test cases plus several rounds of appeals, post legislation. Hardly concealment. Open avoidance scheme, never meant to be anything else. Hardly false representation. HM knew about TAA and rules of SE vs. E well before you did - that's their bread n butter, but they didn't act on it. Not acting on info to one's advantage could be seen as dishonest. Hmnn, wonder who really is worried about fraud.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Poll

I have added a poll to the thread to gauge the mood.

Obviously, it goes without saying, I have voted Yes.

[OneUnited]

I have added a poll to the thread to gauge the mood.

Obviously, it goes without saying, I have voted Yes.

Done

[Kevthered]

I have added a poll to the thread to gauge the mood.

Obviously, it goes without saying, I have voted Yes.

Done, and its still 100% YES