No To Retro Tax - Ongoing battle against S58 FA2008

[Laxmi]

Yeah great idea! Vote Labour. It's not like they came up with this whole thing or anything!

SMH

Think you misread what I wrote - The implication is to remind people what Labour did so they DO NOT vote for them!

[screwthis]

Think you misread what I wrote - The implication is to remind people what Labour did so they DO NOT vote for them!

Ah ha. I see. Yes

[stonehenge]

Huitson appeal

What is the basis of the Huitson tax tribunal appeal?

What is its chance of success?
0%
<25%
<50%
>50%
>75%
100%

If you don't know, and your ass is riding on it, it might not be a bad idea to find out.

[webberg]

Helen7 -In my view, that being that income dating before the retrospective law change in 2008 is judged on the law as it stood at the time.



Isnt this the crux of the entire thing ...... ie thats just like saying they should not retrospectivley be able to bring in the change. As you say - the interst shoudl not stand as the money wasnt owed ... but that is the battle - the money wasnt owed. So if they said the interst wasnt owed cos the money wasnt owed - - bingo wha we are fighting for

or have i misinterpretted that

There is an element of poetic justice in the ability of you all to say to HMRC, just as you looked at the facts and changed the law to bring a liability, we have now looked at the law and WITHOUT changing the facts, think that [the George argument] is a better interpretation. Very sorry we got our original view wrong but if the law was clearer, then perhaps we would not have done.

In many court decisions involving complex law, the judges basically say that if a virtual world has been created that says if you do ABC then the result is D, then if a taxpayer does ABC, then HMRC can't complain is the inevitable, if unsavoury or unsatisfactory, result is D.

That's where you are.


Sorry - filling in some time waiting for a call.

[ready_to_leave]

Not that i am suggesting it. But, funny enough when l.Ron Hubbard's organisation was up for around a billion dollars over charitable status change and unpaid taxes they ran a combination of a multitude of legal and process appeals to clog the system and combined this with private investigation of the officials.

They then had a private meeting with senior IRS officials about the info they had collected. And lo and behold they kept their charitable status and the case was dropped.

Although obviously that info had nothing to do with the investigation being dropped and it was just a coincidence.

I'm sure if there was anything else to combat Georgio, they would have brought it to the meeting. I keep thinking of different angles they could have used but if they settled then for sure they weren't possible in the eyes of the law and thought strong-arming it is the only way out.

How many gezzers are we talking about here that fancy themselves as Britains's own HM Mafioso? There was an idea mooted many submissions ago about private investigators.

[the great escape]

There is an element of poetic justice in the ability of you all to say to HMRC, just as you looked at the facts and changed the law to bring a liability, we have now looked at the law and WITHOUT changing the facts, think that [the George argument] is a better interpretation. Very sorry we got our original view wrong but if the law was clearer, then perhaps we would not have done.

In many court decisions involving complex law, the judges basically say that if a virtual world has been created that says if you do ABC then the result is D, then if a taxpayer does ABC, then HMRC can't complain is the inevitable, if unsavoury or unsatisfactory, result is D.

That's where you are.


Sorry - filling in some time waiting for a call.

How do you see A+B+C = inevitable D being applied to the IOM structure? Or did Monty just get their addition wrong. Seems like sometimes one's addition is correct but the examiner marks it wrong anyway, when viewed through clouded spectacles.

[Britspud]

How do you see A+B+C = inevitable D being applied to the IOM structure? Or did Monty just get their addition wrong. Seems like sometimes one's addition is correct but the examiner marks it wrong anyway, when viewed through clouded spectacles.

Hmmm yes this is what I fear. But that's why NTRT sought the advice of an actual FTT judge.

[webberg]

How do you see A+B+C = inevitable D being applied to the IOM structure? Or did Monty just get their addition wrong. Seems like sometimes one's addition is correct but the examiner marks it wrong anyway, when viewed through clouded spectacles.

No I think that before the law was changed retrospectively, Monty probably got A+B+C right. The pre change rules said that funds arranged to fall within the DTA would not be taxed in the UK. Given that DTA law normally overrules domestic, law, then they did achieve A+B+C = D

Alongside this, from around 1998 HMRC started putting law in the statute book that sought to describe how working in a particular way or with certain features present or absent, meant that you were seen as either an employee or fell into a different category. This is because the statute book never had (and still doesn't) a definition of employee.

So prior to the new raft of rules, you probably had A+some of B + a bit of C might be D or some other letter.

As the rules describing situations and absence/presence of features grew, then B and C became less flexible. As a result if you met A+B+C you have no choice but D.

HMRC changed the equation with their retrospection, it was A+B+C = D and became A+B+C = taxable. No change in facts just rules.

However if you no longer arrive at D, you have to look at where the rules say you should be. Hence George.

[Disgusted of Coventry]

Would you ask them for a review?

As an individual, absolutely not! But as part of a collective, I'm not so sure.

There's something bugging me about this. I don't know whether it's a rational concern, but will say it anyway...

In 2007, scheme users received a letter from HMRC which, although not expressly, was impliedly a statement of their intent to take the question to the Special Commisioners. Later, and after a retrospective change in the Law, a High Court judge breezily dismissed this letter by saying something like "You were at liberty to take this matter into your own hands and approach the Special Commisioners yourselves". (Bizzarely, the judge was also implying that it's a bad idea to attach a truth value to anything which HMRC may intimate; an implication which can't have been lost on their strategists.)

Does the present situation contain a faint echo of this? I mean... is there another High Court judge in some future time continuum saying "You were, in 2015, at liberty to take this matter into your own hands and request a review based on the Law as it stood at that time."?

[elpinar]

change it?

hey ... hubby says we are a yes - so can we change my no to a yes ......

and do we wait for the next newsletter or just call whatever they are called ?

thx