No To Retro Tax - Ongoing battle against S58 FA2008

[Fireship]

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...ncoming-546772

"HMRC has settled the tax due for 457 scheme users. Fewer than 5 such cases were closed by HMRC (for nil) due to an administrative error. The remainder of the 457 cases were settled on HMRC's view that the scheme failed in its purpose. For the avoidance of doubt, HMRC does not accept that the scheme worked in the cases closed in error."

Apart from the fewer than 5 closed in error, they will never reveal how many of the other 452 received a discount.

Typical, they can obviously answer an FOI request regards how many received a discount (or used the George argument) without breaching taxpayer confidentiality…. It seems they are given free rein to do whatever they like!!

[centurian]

DR, is it possible to divulge (roughly) when this occurred, given s58 was 8 years ago.

It's for purely curiosity sake - feel free to ignore if revealing this causes the slightest harm in your position - although presumably HMRC will know when it occurred anyway.

[Fireship]

Another new member

One more just joined the NTRT family

[screwthis]

We know HMRC took George seriously because they issued some formal notices to try and protect their position. I can't reveal what those notices were but they were significant.

I can only presume HMRC were counting on George keeping quiet. I suspect they had little choice but to settle because they couldn't afford the risk of him going to the FTT.

In other words, settling was probably their least worst option.

You have stated that the George argument can be applied to the wider group, which means his circumstances were not unique.

I wonder how George worked out/stumbled across the argument when the rest of us didn't??

[DonkeyRhubarb]

DR, is it possible to divulge (roughly) when this occurred, given s58 was 8 years ago.

It's for purely curiosity sake - feel free to ignore if revealing this causes the slightest harm in your position - although presumably HMRC will know when it occurred anyway.

The settlement was concluded in March last year. George approached us in the May.

After careful consideration, and discussion with our advisors, we instructed Counsel over the summer to give a formal written opinion.

Counsel signed off the opinion late December. In early January we tried to get a meeting with HMRC but they requested that we submit a technical analysis. We did that early last month, and we are now waiting for a response.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

You have stated that the George argument can be applied to the wider group, which means his circumstances were not unique.

I wonder how George worked out/stumbled across the argument when the rest of us didn't??

As well as being a contractor, George is an accountant.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

HMRC obviously know all of this so I'm not revealing any secrets.

HMRC are hardly likely to forget settling with George.

Je ne regrette rien ?

[centurian]

The settlement was concluded in March last year. George approached us in the May.

Within the past 12 months

That's utterly, totally, f<censored> unbelievable...

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Within the past 12 months

That's utterly, totally, f<censored> unbelievable...

You said it.

When he first contacted us we thought it was a wind up. We were very sceptical until he showed us the evidence.

HMRC have admitted settling with him (they could hardly deny it) but claimed his circumstances were special and unique. However, there is nothing unusual about his circumstances. He was just a contractor like the rest of us.

[OnYourBikeGB]

I'm listening to the budget. Next on the hit list are umbrellas, agencies so as to protect those that are 'genuinely self-employed'. Wonder where that one is going. Lot's about unacceptable aggressive tax avoidance and people not paying their fair share. Obviously transferring the family assets into offshore trusts to avoid £1.6m in tax is acceptable aggressive tax avoidance then. Eh George O?