No To Retro Tax - Ongoing battle against S58 FA2008

[screwthis]

Question

In order for them to extend the 6 years to 20, do they just have to allege fraud or do we need to be convicted by a jury of our peers first?

[bananarepublic]

In order for them to extend the 6 years to 20, do they just have to allege fraud or do we need to be convicted by a jury of our peers first?

We don't need to be convicted of anything. Also just because HMRC allege fraudulent conduct it doesn't follow that we would be automatically prosecuted.

[screwthis]

We don't need to be convicted of anything. Also just because HMRC allege fraudulent conduct it doesn't follow that we would be automatically prosecuted.

It's not the criminal prosecution I am referring to but the ability for them to go back 20 years into our affairs. Right now there is a 6 year window, after which they cannot go back and demand PAYE and NIC from employed income. With the 20 year window they can.

Question is, is the 20 year rule automatically granted to them if they suspect/allege fraud?

[BarneyCool]

Does it really matter?

It's not the criminal prosecution I am referring to but the ability for them to go back 20 years into our affairs. Right now there is a 6 year window, after which they cannot go back and demand PAYE and NIC from employed income. With the 20 year window they can.

Question is, is the 20 year rule automatically granted to them if they suspect/allege fraud?

Pre 2000 was non IR35 and other than that I was PAYE anyway. What are they going to really get from it? It will cost em more in investigating. How much did they waste on bull tulip fraud charges against WG? And that was just against 2 people.

[screwthis]

Pre 2000 was non IR35 and other than that I was PAYE anyway. What are they going to really get from it? It will cost em more in investigating. How much did they waste on bull tulip fraud charges against WG? And that was just against 2 people.

Maybe I'm understanding it wrong.

I thought one facet of TAA was that they can't go back more than 6 years and issue tax demands for employed income rather than trust income so they are stuck with the position that they initially went with (trust income).

They are now threatening that if we don't drop TAA they will stick us with fraud and be able to go back and fine comb over 20 years thus being able to do what they want to.

So, in my case tax years 2001/2002 would become fair game.

[bananarepublic]

Pre 2000 was non IR35 and other than that I was PAYE anyway. What are they going to really get from it? It will cost em more in investigating. How much did they waste on bull tulip fraud charges against WG? And that was just against 2 people.

The fraud contention (I think they term it deliberate behaviour) is important because it is the only way they can go back more than 6 years.

The reason they would do this is so they can transfer the PAYE obligation on the monies received via the scheme to you personally. The ability to look at other years prior to 2009 that you were not in the scheme is incidental.

[Britspud]

Pre 2000 was non IR35 and other than that I was PAYE anyway. What are they going to really get from it? It will cost em more in investigating. How much did they waste on bull tulip fraud charges against WG? And that was just against 2 people.

You're leaving bloody mindedness out of the equation. Imagine the bashing Lyn Homer will get from media/PAC etc...I would bet she'll be willing to try anything to avoid being brought down publicly on an indefensible position by that poisoned dwarf, Hodge! They'll do anything they can to delay/obfusticate. If they know they're fecked on the TAA front but think there's even a 1% chance of being allowed to go back 20 years by claiming fraud, I'm sure they'll try it.

[bananarepublic]

Maybe I'm understanding it wrong.

I thought one facet of TAA was that they can't go back more than 6 years and issue tax demands for employed income rather than trust income so they are stuck with the position that they initially went with (trust income).

They are now threatening that if we don't drop TAA they will stick us with fraud and be able to go back and fine comb over 20 years thus being able to do what they want to.

So, in my case tax years 2001/2002 would become fair game.

They use the fraud argument so for the years you were in the scheme they can effectively agree with your contention that you were not self employed but charge you the tax (plus penalties). If your conduct was not fraudulent the only way to defeat the George argument is for HMRC to say you were in fact self employed in which case S58 applies.

HMRC are unlikely to want to argue that you were self employed because in doing so they would potentially undermine IR35.

The possibility of investigating any other year pre 2009 where you were outside the scheme is incidental.

[BarneyCool]

The fraud contention (I think they term it deliberate behaviour) is important because it is the only way they can go back more than 6 years.

The reason they would do this is so they can transfer the PAYE obligation on the monies received via the scheme to you personally. The ability to look at other years prior to 2009 that you were not in the scheme is incidental.

All I know is that none of us have committed fraud!

[screwthis]

If they know they're fecked on the TAA front but think there's even a 1% chance of being allowed to go back 20 years by claiming fraud, I'm sure they'll try it.

So the question remains. What do they need in order to be able to push the 20 year rule through?
Can they just say we have reason to believe or do they have to prove it?
If so, where and to whom do they need to prove it?

There must be a definition of what passes as deliberate behaviour and what the protocol is for getting that to stick.