No To Retro Tax - Ongoing battle against S58 FA2008

[bananarepublic]

Wouldn't want to lose Huitson and then have them issue demands saying you've lost your tribunal, pay up.

Couple of points about Huitson FTTT.
1. As I understand the judgement is imminent. How can it be abuse of process if we are waiting for another opinion at the time judgement is made?
2. If HMRC win the Huitson FTTT then Montpelier will appeal. Also isn't there a linked FTTT with Shiner? Our main problem is if Montpelier do not appeal in which case HMRC will issue follower notices potentially. Surely with regards the TAA we need to get the argument in before the Huitson case is concluded? Would have thought that abuse of process would be where Huitson exhausted all appeals and then we asked for a review/FTTT using the TAA.

[ASB]

Risky. We have been advised if we do that it could be viewed as "abuse of process".

As I've said before, delay only serves HMRC.

I can follow that. Though it depends to some extent on how much, if any, of the argument in that ftt is rekevant to your own case.

I.e. in effect you cant really say "damn cant use huitson, lets try this instead".

I personally think it is a great shame that all those years ago people were prepared to he bound by a test case. If this hadnt happened and tribunal was gone to then it would probably be resolved one way or another by now. And it woukd have been heard under the rules at the time.

[LionCopse]

First poster / time long time lurker here /NTRT member.

It could be that HMRC are trying the "fraud" scare tactic to cause delay and thus invoke "abuse of process" if Huitson is imminent.
I think this thread shows that we are looking to go the way of review and/or FTT.

I for one think that we need to get a move on whichever way we go, but are in the hands of our legal representatives.

I am just waiting for the signal and have my cheque book at the ready.

[Morlock]

I really dont see much point in Anne Redstone's(?) opinion on hrmc's fraud stance. If she says they are peeing in the wind, you'd need 3 or 4 similar legal views to confirm this as each FTT and Chairman could reach a different conclusion.

The FTT will not be able to rule on fraud. Fraud is a criminal matter which will need to be dealt with by a criminal court. It is a serious accusation to make and HMRC will need to be very certain of their footing before they start down that route.

[Morlock]

Here is an extract from the CPS website:

"
Fraud by false representation (Section 2)

The defendant:
1. made a false representation
2. dishonestly
3. knowing that the representation was or might be untrue or misleading
4. with intent to make a gain for himself or another, to cause loss to another or to expose another to risk of loss.

The offence is entirely focused on the conduct of the defendant.
"

Reference Point 3: "Your honour, at the time I honestly believed that I was self-employed. And so did HMRC."

[eek]

I seem to remember an Upper Tax tribunal regarding Self employment...

Does http://www.tribunals.gov.uk/financea...TeamSpirit.pdf help at all.

[BarneyCool]

Exactly!

Here is an extract from the CPS website:

"
Fraud by false representation (Section 2)

The defendant:
1. made a false representation
2. dishonestly
3. knowing that the representation was or might be untrue or misleading
4. with intent to make a gain for himself or another, to cause loss to another or to expose another to risk of loss.

The offence is entirely focused on the conduct of the defendant.
"

Reference Point 3: "Your honour, at the time I honestly believed that I was self-employed. And so did HMRC."

There is no other way to put it, that is exactly as it is and as it was.

[elpinar]

There is no other way to put it, that is exactly as it is and as it was.

forget montpelier and advisors etc etc etc

when the scheme was sold to us we were told of/shown a QC opinion that had been obtained and they were happy with it all.
We then wrote everything down on our tax returns (unlike many other schemes)

However much anyone (ie judges/hmrc etc etc ) now want to abuse the system and decide that now morality rather than legality is what counts ... how did we cleverly invlove a QC in 'fraud' ...... and get them to say it was OK?

[MishiMoo]

Ok great. Same years as me basically.

Looking forward to hearing the response to 06/07 and 07/08.

Apparently the draft letter for 04/05 and 05/06 cannot be used for 06/07 and 07/08 and I must wait for further news / instructions relevant to those tax years.

[Henrik]

Here is an extract from the CPS website:

"
Fraud by false representation (Section 2)

The defendant:
1. made a false representation
2. dishonestly
3. knowing that the representation was or might be untrue or misleading
4. with intent to make a gain for himself or another, to cause loss to another or to expose another to risk of loss.




The offence is entirely focused on the conduct of the defendant.
"

Reference Point 3: "Your honour, at the time I honestly believed that I was self-employed. And so did HMRC."

My wife is a Solicitor in the Scottish Legal System. She's fully up to speed with our case. Her opinion that the allegation of fraud would NEVER see the light of day in court.

My opinion - it's a badly thought out and desperate bluff.