No To Retro Tax - Ongoing battle against S58 FA2008

[DonkeyRhubarb]

So, if we 'drop it' does it go back to not being fraudulent or does it, now HMRC have made the accusation, remain fraud regardless I wonder? Fraud is fraud surely

I expect HMRC will let us off the fraud if we drop it.

[Hmmmmm]

Fraud! Really?

Just to add, this does smell of scare tactics. From my understanding if HMRC was to accuse one of fraud they would have to accuse all as a person in public office can not turn a blind eye to a crime they are aware of.

In this case they would also have to go after those who have already settled. Therefore, wouldn't they have to repay them any settlement they have paid. Or just keep the money and use it to fund the fight.

Also, given this would involve 1,000s of people it would be considered a fraud that prosecution is in the public interest. In that case it would need to be referred to the SFO wouldn't it. That would end up costing a lot of money.

I can see them fighting this to the end. Giving George a deal is one thing and probably wasn't worth the cost of fighting to them, but when facing a large number of people not paying it suddenly becomes viable for them to fight.

Very aware HMRC operate in an alternative reality so who knows what the time machine could pull out of the bag.

[OnYourBikeGB]

Just out of curiosity, and for the benefit of any of our HMRC 'friends', how do the courts view malicious and false accusations of fraud to cover up personal incompetence in public office?

[BrilloPad]

Just out of curiosity, and for the benefit of any of our HMRC 'friends', how do the courts view malicious and false accusations of fraud to cover up personal incompetence in public office?

If its Judge Parker then they get a gong. If not, its sharing a cell with bubba....

[nevergiveup]

Just to add, this does smell of scare tactics. From my understanding if HMRC was to accuse one of fraud they would have to accuse all as a person in public office can not turn a blind eye to a crime they are aware of.

In this case they would also have to go after those who have already settled. Therefore, wouldn't they have to repay them any settlement they have paid. Or just keep the money and use it to fund the fight.

Also, given this would involve 1,000s of people it would be considered a fraud that prosecution is in the public interest. In that case it would need to be referred to the SFO wouldn't it. That would end up costing a lot of money.

I can see them fighting this to the end. Giving George a deal is one thing and probably wasn't worth the cost of fighting to them, but when facing a large number of people not paying it suddenly becomes viable for them to fight.

Very aware HMRC operate in an alternative reality so who knows what the time machine could pull out of the bag.

Well the SFO define fraud as:

* deception whereby someone knowingly makes false representation (only given professional advice from Montp)
* or they fail to disclose information (told them everything, in fact probably more than we had too)
* or they abuse a position (what position)

Well none of the above apply to me!!

NGU

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Just to add, this does smell of scare tactics. From my understanding if HMRC was to accuse one of fraud they would have to accuse all as a person in public office can not turn a blind eye to a crime they are aware of.

You are very astute my friend.

HMRC are now in possession of the Redston technical analysis which says no-one was probably genuinely self-employed.

Their eyes have been opened to an industrial scale fraud. Yet what are they doing about it?

Answer - threatening anyone who brings it up.

[Morlock]

HMRC's objection to TAA

I reckon you've got a right to know.

The agency argument would not apply if we were deemed to have been genuinely self-employed (sole traders).

HMRC could try and prove that we did qualify as self-employed but that would fly in the face of everything they stand for.

Therefore TAA leaves them with a problem.

Their answer?

To allege that we fraudulently declared on our self-assessment that we were self-employed. Amongst other things, if proven, it would mean they could go back 20 years to assess PAYE instead of the normal 6 years.

Our barrister Anne Redston, who is also a Tribunal Judge, does not believe there is any basis for fraud. However, given the seriousness of this, we have instructed her to look at this more closely.

They will find it extremely difficult to prove fraud. It will have to go in front of a criminal court. And the prosecution would have to prove that you knowingly made a false declaration in order to secure a financial advantage. Given that the financial advantage wasn't even known as a possibility until a few months ago, there's no way that you can be proven to have foreseen it, let alone schemed to do it, many years ago. I seriously doubt that the CPS would even contemplate going after a prosecution on such a thin argument as this.

[BrilloPad]

Well the SFO define fraud as:

* deception whereby someone knowingly makes false representation (only given professional advice from Montp)
* or they fail to disclose information (told them everything, in fact probably more than we had too)
* or they abuse a position (what position)

Well none of the above apply to me!!

NGU

Stupid question. Aren't we liable for what was put on the tax return? If not, following on logically, we might have a case against Montp if we lose?

[warlord]

You are very astute my friend.

HMRC are now in possession of the Redston technical analysis which says no-one was probably genuinely self-employed.

Their eyes have been opened to an industrial scale fraud. Yet what are they doing about it?

Answer - threatening anyone who brings it up.

If I was employed can I retrospectively claim holiday and sick pay? (not to mention training and Full expenses) ;-)
What a nightmare.
HMRC get into your heads most of us have no money to pay.

[helen7]

What surprises me, is that when HMRC offered George his 50% settlement they did not ask him to sign a non-disclosure agreement. Surely they would have known he would tell us all about the great deal he got from HMRC.

As for the TAA arguement. I suspect that for anyone that has continued in contracting and a LTD company this is a no go. You can bet your last dime that if you claim TAA at FTT an IR35 enquiry will be launched in to all of your subsiquent tax years since you left MTM. I very much doubt QDOS/PCG would represent you and without them; funding a defense would ruin you.

Lets pray Watkins and co. can show HMRC up for the thieves that they are.