No To Retro Tax - Ongoing battle against S58 FA2008

[BrilloPad]

Oops. Originally we were aiming for 29th but we're now hoping to bring it forward to end of next week.

There's quite a bit of admin process to sort out, both on our side and CCW's, for all the FTT applications.

Why bring it forward? Lot of waiting to be done...

[elpinar]

Any word on when Huitson FTT result will be announced?

Are we stumped if this comes out before we are able to apply to the FTT.

On the admin side will we or CCW (on our behalf) apply to the FTT.

and is there any chance of it winning or is it dead in the water

[bananarepublic]

and is there any chance of it winning or is it dead in the water

Chances of winning at this FTT I believe are considered unlikely. The S58 legislation was mis drafted but the courts now consider the intention of parliament so whether we received profits or income from a trust (as I understand the difference between our entitlement under the scheme and S58 wording) should probably be immaterial.

As I understand it there is another linked FTT where a different argument will be used. And even if the Huitson FTT is lost Montpellier are likely to appeal.

[Britspud]

Chances of winning at this FTT I believe are considered unlikely. The S58 legislation was mis drafted but the courts now consider the intention of parliament so whether we received profits or income from a trust (as I understand the difference between our entitlement under the scheme and S58 wording) should probably be immaterial.

As I understand it there is another linked FTT where a different argument will be used. And even if the Huitson FTT is lost Montpellier are likely to appeal.

I agree with you entirely...it does highlight the ridiculousness of it though. Whatever the intention, the legal definition was the thing we used and there was no other guidance...and then they changed the definition slightly, thus confirming it's ambiguity. And now it's irrelevant anyway because we were supposed to be able to discern parliament's intention regardless of how it was defined in law! Seems reasonable...not!

[the great escape]

I agree with you entirely...it does highlight the ridiculousness of it though. Whatever the intention, the legal definition was the thing we used and there was no other guidance...and then they changed the definition slightly, thus confirming it's ambiguity. And now it's irrelevant anyway because we were supposed to be able to discern parliament's intention regardless of how it was defined in law! Seems reasonable...not!

Mrs Hodge, "I paid all relevant taxes in full."
Her family business paid just 0.25 per cent in tax on its profits
Ed Balls, 'she paid the appropriate tax'

Justice takes money, friends or an axe.

[Ninja]

APN Withdrawal refused

Received in this morning's post, in response to MP letter template.

"Thank you for your confirmation that you did participate in the DOTAS scheme reference number 64863085 and that the details included on the Notice are correct in accordance with Finance Act 2014.
I understand from your letter that you do not consider that any objections you may have to the APN are objections which may be the subject of written representations under section 222 of the Finance Act 2014.
HMRC does not agree that the fact that another judicial review claim has been made is a reason for agreeing to withdraw the APN issued to you. In the absence of any other reason for withdrawing the notice, HMRC declines to do so. The accelerated payment remains payable by 9 June 2015."

There's no reference to a tax year though. I have forwarded to our friends in Douglas.

[lucozade]

Received in this morning's post, in response to MP letter template.

"Thank you for your confirmation that you did participate in the DOTAS scheme reference number 64863085 and that the details included on the Notice are correct in accordance with Finance Act 2014.
I understand from your letter that you do not consider that any objections you may have to the APN are objections which may be the subject of written representations under section 222 of the Finance Act 2014.
HMRC does not agree that the fact that another judicial review claim has been made is a reason for agreeing to withdraw the APN issued to you. In the absence of any other reason for withdrawing the notice, HMRC declines to do so. The accelerated payment remains payable by 9 June 2015."

There's no reference to a tax year though. I have forwarded to our friends in Douglas.

I'm confused - is this your letter to them or their letter to you ?

[BrilloPad]

I'm confused - is this your letter to them or their letter to you ?

FRom HMRC to Ninja.

I think they said "get stuffed. we can do what we want when we want to."

And to be fair - they seem to be able to do what they want when they want.

[lucozade]

FRom HMRC to Ninja.

I think they said "get stuffed. we can do what we want when we want to."

And to be fair - they seem to be able to do what they want when they want.

Yeah that's what I thought but the way it was written sounded like "thanks for confirming your a tax avoider and that we don't give a crap about your letter" - Hitler would be proud.

[the great escape]

Oops. Originally we were aiming for 29th but we're now hoping to bring it forward to end of next week.

There's quite a bit of admin process to sort out, both on our side and CCW's, for all the FTT applications.

Nice. Could do with that as cross the T-60 day point. Sounds like Monty's 'similar JR' appeal will do sweet FA to avoid the inevitable. Not sure if anyone has had a reply back from HM regading 'not notifiable'.