No To Retro Tax - Ongoing battle against S58 FA2008

[DonkeyRhubarb]

The interest is a real killer

This shows the approximate percentages and interest on £30,000.

2001/2........64%......£19,163
2002/3........57%......£17,213
2003/4........51%......£15,363
2004/5........44%......£13,138
2005/6........37%......£11,163
2006/7........30%........£8,938
2007/8........22%........£6,563
2008/9........17%........£5,100
2009/10......13%........£3,900
2010/11......10%........£3,000
2011/12 .......7%........£2,100
2012/13........4%........£1,200

[webberg]

Ah, I've just found the post which is making people worried about this...but are there not checks and balances for this? As you say, it's going to take significant resources on their side...surely even in HMRC it must be justified with some real indication that fraud exists? It's clear to see that this is only ever opinion, and we're changing our positions on the basis of new advice.

COP 9 is usually used by HMRc to shake the tree.

It allows them to later allege fraud (criminal) but to allow you to plea to a lesser (civil) position.

It's used a big stick although it does give HMRC power to get documents etc and to make unfounded allegations.

The point of the post was a response to a question along the lines of "If HMRC say it's fraud, so what?"

I was trying to put some flesh on the "so what".

It's not meant to be alarmist but rather educational and I don't want people going this route, getting a COP 9 and thinking "why didn't I know this?

Prior to COP 9 is was called a Hansard procedure and that might yield better google results?

[Donnie Darko]

It's not meant to be alarmist but

Really?

[OnYourBikeGB]

Worth a read.

http://www.pinsentmasons.com/PDF/TJ_1223_PM.pdf

HMRC take note:

HMRC could face claims for costs from taxpayers who have been subject to unnecessary investigations.

and

Then there is the uncertainty and considerable cost – and reputational risk – to HMRC of mounting more prosecutions. Proving a taxpayer guilty beyond a reasonable doubt rightly requires a very high standard of proof on the part of the prosecutor.

and

Those in HMRC who have advocated a zealous determination to punish tax evaders (and tax avoiders) should remember two things: first, that HMRC’s priority is and always has been to collect the tax at the lowest possible cost; and, second, that criminal prosecutions have not always ended happily for the tax authority in the past.

Then multiply it all by 500. Somewhere, even in HMRC, there is a sense of pragmatism. 500 COP 9s out of pure vindictiveness won't fly. To do so would undermine their own institution and leave much more than our two inspectors - at least one of whom is leaving soon anyway, hopefully both - with a hell of a mess to explain, and quite likely an awful lot of money to pay out. As it stands, I for one would just walk away. If they tried this on, then I'd want every penny I can get out of them. We all know they'd lose.

[BolshieBastard]

Reading that article, surely for hmrc to issue COP9's they have to support and defend a position on tax evasion and fraud?

There's clearly no evasion here so cannot see how they can defend issuing COP9's.

[the great escape]

Worth a read.

http://www.pinsentmasons.com/PDF/TJ_1223_PM.pdf

HMRC take note:

HMRC could face claims for costs from taxpayers who have been subject to unnecessary investigations.

and

Then there is the uncertainty and considerable cost – and reputational risk – to HMRC of mounting more prosecutions. Proving a taxpayer guilty beyond a reasonable doubt rightly requires a very high standard of proof on the part of the prosecutor.

and

Those in HMRC who have advocated a zealous determination to punish tax evaders (and tax avoiders) should remember two things: first, that HMRC’s priority is and always has been to collect the tax at the lowest possible cost; and, second, that criminal prosecutions have not always ended happily for the tax authority in the past.

Then multiply it all by 500. Somewhere, even in HMRC, there is a sense of pragmatism. 500 COP 9s out of pure vindictiveness won't fly. To do so would undermine their own institution and leave much more than our two inspectors - at least one of whom is leaving soon anyway, hopefully both - with a hell of a mess to explain, and quite likely an awful lot of money to pay out. As it stands, I for one would just walk away. If they tried this on, then I'd want every penny I can get out of them. We all know they'd lose.

How much money do the govt. want to spend - and risk, to recover the money they believe, if not in law then morally, they're owed. It's getting to a point where it's got to be collected simply to justify the investment, if not the term in office. It's a belly-up stock HM. Make a deal and cut the losses. Vin devis, ce soir

"...if men make war in slavish obedience to rules, they will fail." - Ulysses S. Grant

[Ninja]

Nervous

I just voted 'Yes', because that seems to be where the smart money is going, however, I now operate using Ltd company and suffer the same anxiety as a previous poster (RunningMan?).

Fingers (& everything else) firmly crossed

[Ninja]

I don't think the guys we're dealing with in HMRC really understand this "self-employed vs employed" stuff. Their area of expertise is trusts, foreign income etc.

To illustrate this, below is an excerpt from one of the witness statements given at the Huitson JR.

Extract from McD's witness statement.jpg - Files.com

Do you see what I mean?

This uses the same flawed logic as "All cats have 4 legs. My dog has 4 legs, therefore my dog is a cat!"

It makes a huge leap in assuming that all scheme users were all definite IR35 candidates, rather than genuine self-employed contractors, not wanting to be inadvertently caught up in IR35 fiasco (just like Arctic Systems Ltd). A subtle, but very very important difference.

[oneoftruegrit]

Yes

Guys, I have been a lurker for a long time but have been an NTRT member for quite a while now and contribute monthly. I have been following the forum regularly and this is keeping me sane. So would like to applaud DR, SmallDog and the entire NTRT team for their tremendous effort. Have been away from the forum for a few days and have just about caught up with things after 'scanning' through the numerous posts. I have voted yes, but would like to ask DR one question. I understand that what MP are doing is separate from the FTT being proposed here but would MP have an opinion on the FTT route?

[elpinar]

i on the other hand

I just voted 'Yes', because that seems to be where the smart money is going, however, I now operate using Ltd company and suffer the same anxiety as a previous poster (RunningMan?).

Fingers (& everything else) firmly crossed

am with running man and vote No. I just don't like the i was that, then i found i was this but now im that again argument