No To Retro Tax - Ongoing battle against S58 FA2008

[bananarepublic]

You are correct, not being self-employed is critical to the TAA argument.

But if, based on the new analysis, we say that we weren't self-employed, do you think HMRC are going to go to court and argue that we were?

By alleging fraud, HMRC are attempting to still collect the revenue without arguing against TAA.

- OK we accept you weren't self-employed
- However, that means you fraudulently declared yourself as self-employed on your self-assessment

Well if HMRC start waving around allegations of fraud we will likely have to argue why we considered ourselves to be self employed when we used the scheme, even if our view may have changed now due to a new opinion. I'd rather be stiffed under S58 for income tax/NI rather than liable under PAYE for "deliberate" actions which of course would likely come with hefty penalties.

[DotasScandal]

if an APN is withdrawn is that like double jeopardy where they cant then later issue another one for the same tax year ... or is that just the world in my little fantasy land ?

Fantasy land...

[nevergiveup]

Well if HMRC start waving around allegations of fraud we will likely have to argue why we considered ourselves to be self employed when we used the scheme, even if our view may have changed now due to a new opinion. I'd rather be stiffed under S58 for income tax/NI rather than liable under PAYE for "deliberate" actions which of course would likely come with hefty penalties.

I think we all need to stop speculating about the various scenarios until our QC comes back with their opinion.

[Morlock]

- OK we accept you weren't self-employed
- However, that means you fraudulently declared yourself as self-employed on your self-assessment

It wasn't fraud, it was a mistaken belief based on the information available to me at the time, including advice from my tax advisers and a tax bill from HMRC which asked me for Class 4 NI Contributions. I had no idea that Anne Redston QC would produce a compelling counter-argument many years later. I see now however that both HMRC and myself were mistaken, and I would like to take the opportunity to set the record straight and resolve my disputed tax affairs as soon as possible.

[bananarepublic]

Advice please, is it best to use your oldest CTD last when paying APNs, in case something crawls out of the woodwork and further charges come our way retrospectively, or does it not make any difference?

Also I had a letter from MTM advising that one year for which i received an APN was not a notifiable arrangement hence APN should be withdraw, do i write to HMRC explaining this and get it withdrawn, or will this impact TAA argument?

Thanks in advance.

Now we have got to the pointy and shouty stage how long do we think until we get a conclusion?

Depends on the date you purchased the CTD's and the tax years you are trying to cover with them.

If all your CTD's were purchased after the date your last liability arose it probably doesn't matter what order you use them in. Best not to use a CTD that you purchased before the liability became due if you can avoid it - assuming you have liabilities which pre-date those covered by APNs.

When calculating the due date for tax year note that it isn't always 31 January in the next year. HMRC would generally expect you to pay on account. So for tax year ending 5 April 2005, part of your liability may arise 31 January 2005, another 31 July 2005 and the remainder on 31 January 2006, depending on your exact circumstances.

[Buzby]

judiciary process

You are correct, not being self-employed is critical to the TAA argument.

But if, based on the new analysis, we say that we weren't self-employed, do you think HMRC are going to go to court and argue that we were?

By alleging fraud, HMRC are attempting to still collect the revenue without arguing against TAA.

- OK we accept you weren't self-employed
- However, that means you fraudulently declared yourself as self-employed on your self-assessment

As it stands unless HMRC are willing to allow time to pay (number of years) and right off around 60%, I will go bankrupt and probably lose my job, not necessarily from the current APN, but from all the previous years and interest. Therefore I think I would prefer to roll the dice and go to court on the grounds that I wasn't self-employed. It would at least give me my day in court.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

It wasn't fraud, it was a mistaken belief based on the information available to me at the time, including advice from my tax advisers and a tax bill from HMRC which asked me for Class 4 NI Contributions. I had no idea that Anne Redston QC would produce a compelling counter-argument many years later. I see now however that both HMRC and myself were mistaken, and I would like to take the opportunity to set the record straight and resolve my disputed tax affairs as soon as possible.

I couldn't have put it better myself.

HMRC really are taking the piss alleging fraud.

[DownButNotOut]

Draft letter from Montp

Has anyone else read the draft response from Montp why the APN is not valid. (received today) Have they created a letter based on the draft and sent it too HMRC?

[slogger]

Has anyone else read the draft response from Montp why the APN is not valid. (received today) Have they created a letter based on the draft and sent it too HMRC?

got mine today - will mail to hmrc and post response when i get it..

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Well if HMRC start waving around allegations of fraud we will likely have to argue why we considered ourselves to be self employed when we used the scheme, even if our view may have changed now due to a new opinion. I'd rather be stiffed under S58 for income tax/NI rather than liable under PAYE for "deliberate" actions which of course would likely come with hefty penalties.

I never considered it. I just followed professional advice. The scheme was backed up by a QC opinion. It's not my fault if the original QC didn't consider it.

If Anne Redston comes back with a reaffirmation of her original opinion, then I'm going for it.

I've had enough of dicking about.