No To Retro Tax - Ongoing battle against S58 FA2008

[OneUnited]

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.

H7 where do you get that assumption, I think this is very misleading I have enough worries with s58.

e.g. you have been running as a Ltd. since 2009 and have been paying subs to IPSE (formerly PCG) and was then investigated over IR35 for any of the subsequent years then the whole point about having that form of insurance/service would kick in I just cannot see why, our in fact how, they would not defend you.

What you are implying is that because I was using a scheme in a previous life they would exclude me from a service that I have paid for I don’t think so

[screwthis]

So I think what HMRC are saying is we ticked the box to say we were not subject to IR35 on our tax returns.

If we now claim that we were IR35 they may deduce that we knowlingly lied on our original returns.

I imagine we would need to demonstrate why we believe now that years 2002-2007 were subject to IR35 and; why our status has chanced since we submitted them.

They cannot prove what we thought.
We thought we were self employed. We now think differently. This falls very far into reasonable doubt.

[helen7]

H7 where do you get that assumption, I think this is very misleading I have enough worries with s58.

e.g. you have been running as a Ltd. since 2009 and have been paying subs to IPSE (formerly PCG) and was then investigated over IR35 for any of the subsequent years then the whole point about having that form of insurance/service would kick in I just cannot see why, our in fact how, they would not defend you.

What you are implying is that because I was using a scheme in a previous life they would exclude me from a service that I have paid for I don’t think so

No, what I am implying is that if you claim your working conditions to have been caught under the IR35 legislation whilst you were in the scheme (as per TAA), surely IPSE may not jump to your defence if HMRC then opened an investigation into the years since you left the schema. We would certainly need to declare to them so as to not risk voiding the policy.

[bananarepublic]

So I think what HMRC are saying is we ticked the box to say we were not subject to IR35 on our tax returns.

If we now claim that we were IR35 they may deduce that we knowlingly lied on our original returns.

I imagine we would need to demonstrate why we believe now that years 2002-2007 were subject to IR35 and; why our status has chanced since we submitted them.

Doesn't the question relate to PSCs? We didn't work through a PSC under the scheme so why would you tick the box?

Although related and kind of equivalent we do not have to prove we were under IR35 as that relates to PSCs. The George argument is based on a different part of the legislation.

HMRC are saying that in a premeditated way you said that you were self employed when you knew full well that you were employed all along.

My question is employed by who?

And if HMRC never thought of the George argument in all of the time since the scheme came into operation how on earth could we have known about it when we originally did our tax returns? Surely this fact alone invalidates the fraud argument (or even negligence/carelessness)?

[bananarepublic]

They cannot prove what we thought.
We thought we were self employed. We now think differently. This falls very far into reasonable doubt.

Well officially you haven't told anyone that you have changed your mind...

[normalbloke]

No, what I am implying is that if you claim your working conditions to have been caught under the IR35 legislation whilst you were in the scheme (as per TAA), surely IPSE may not jump to your defence if HMRC then opened an investigation into the years since you left the schema. We would certainly need to declare to them so as to not risk voiding the policy.

IR35 may or may not apply to a particular contract. Some contracts may have been in IR35, others may not have been. Saying you were inside years ago on a contract, in no way means you were in all subsequent contracts.

[the great escape]

When you declared as self-employed on your return did you know there was anything wrong with that?

If not, when did you first become aware that it might not have been correct?

The status of self-employment vs. employed can always be stated at the outset but can often later be challenged in the courts. Such is the contentious nature of the IR35 beast itself. "Based on the information I had at the time M'lud, I was SE". Why would there be IR35 insurance on offer if not.

If there's no difference between us and the dragon slayer, why should there be any difference in the result. And surely the represntatives of said slayer are in the best position to declare that - which they have in the last newsletter.

For me, one of two is apparent. The difference of George is not related to his work situation or HMRC simply cocked up. Debate rolls on I guess.

[carling]

So are they saying that George also committed fraud, yet they let him off for a sum of money.....
Surely that makes someone in HMRC complicit in the supposed fraud and due a nice long stretch.

[OneUnited]

IR35 may or may not apply to a particular contract. Some contracts may have been in IR35, others may not have been. Saying you were inside years ago on a contract, in no way means you were in all subsequent contracts.

That's my understanding

[bananarepublic]

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.

Anything to do with APNs being withdrawn?