No To Retro Tax - Ongoing battle against S58 FA2008

[OnYourBikeGB]

but surely if you won later using george your apn would be retrospecively (yes i used THAT word) revoked ... so you would owe 5- 15% of nothing ......

Don't be under the illusion that we are dealing with anything but an shower of utter bastards. The fact that they can fine you because you didn't give them money that belonged to you when they demanded it retrospectively without any proof that they had any claim on it, potentially even bankrupt you through the fine alone, might seem like something you'd expect from a corrupt third-world regime. But that'd be the wrong perception, even third world corrupt regimes don't do that. Only here.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

What do you make of this?

• Taxpayer writes to HMRC saying they didn't open an enquiry for tax year 2004/5
• HMRC writes back enclosing a copy of the enquiry letter they originally sent
• Taxpayer thinks hey I recognise that letter
• Taxpayer digs out the original letter
• Superficially they look the same
• All the dates and references also match
• But HMRC have added something to make it more of a legitimate opening of an enquiry
• And yet they are claiming this is a copy of the original letter

[funjim]

i make

What do you make of this?

• Taxpayer writes to HMRC saying they didn't open an enquiry for tax year 2004/5
• HMRC writes back enclosing a copy of the enquiry letter they originally sent
• Taxpayer thinks hey I recognise that letter
• Taxpayer digs out the original letter
• Superficially they look the same
• All the dates and references also match
• But HMRC have added something to make it more of a legitimate opening of an enquiry
• And yet they are claiming this is a copy of the original letter

standard tactics - the fact your original has changed/faded somehow is pure coincidence!

[TheFlyer]

What do you make of this?

• Taxpayer writes to HMRC saying they didn't open an enquiry for tax year 2004/5
• HMRC writes back enclosing a copy of the enquiry letter they originally sent
• Taxpayer thinks hey I recognise that letter
• Taxpayer digs out the original letter
• Superficially they look the same
• All the dates and references also match
• But HMRC have added something to make it more of a legitimate opening of an enquiry
• And yet they are claiming this is a copy of the original letter

If this is the case and you used that has evidence in court would their letter be considered invalid/illegal and you would simply win the case? Didn't the police do this years ago and put in jail many innocent people. Someone in the revenue must be held to account for this now or in the future. This is something done in a police state or banana republic is it not.

[GripRacing]

What do you make of this?

• But HMRC have added something to make it more of a legitimate opening of an enquiry
• And yet they are claiming this is a copy of the original letter

Fraud, surely. Can't be any doubt about it. I hope the letter was signed, so you have the name.

[webberg]

What do you make of this?

• Taxpayer writes to HMRC saying they didn't open an enquiry for tax year 2004/5
• HMRC writes back enclosing a copy of the enquiry letter they originally sent
• Taxpayer thinks hey I recognise that letter
• Taxpayer digs out the original letter
• Superficially they look the same
• All the dates and references also match
• But HMRC have added something to make it more of a legitimate opening of an enquiry
• And yet they are claiming this is a copy of the original letter

You ask your lawyer to have the notice declared invalid.
You refer the matter to the Revenue Ombudsman seeking compensation and costs.
You publish the two versions in the press.
You tell your MP.

If you have the nerve, you say nothing until you're in front of the FTT and then produce the original and the doctored HMRC copy. He will (or should) call HMRC to account and dismiss the case. Unfortunately a FTT has no jurisdiction to award costs.

[webberg]

but surely if you won later using george your apn would be retrospecively (yes i used THAT word) revoked ... so you would owe 5- 15% of nothing ......

Depends on the final liability.

Let's say you received £100 of income and paid £10 of tax in 2008.

You get an APN in 2015 for £30.

In 2020 you get a final settlement of £15.

Therefore your APN should have been for £5

If you have not paid it, a penalty based on £5 is due.

If the final settlement of the tax position is £10 or less, then the APN is effectively NIL and 15% of that is still NIL.

That's my take on it.

[ASB]

What do you make of this?

• Taxpayer writes to HMRC saying they didn't open an enquiry for tax year 2004/5
• HMRC writes back enclosing a copy of the enquiry letter they originally sent
• Taxpayer thinks hey I recognise that letter
• Taxpayer digs out the original letter
• Superficially they look the same
• All the dates and references also match
• But HMRC have added something to make it more of a legitimate opening of an enquiry
• And yet they are claiming this is a copy of the original letter

I think I make that Misfaesance in Public Office.

[DownButNotOut]

Received APN warning letter for a tax period I wasn't in the scheme

what do I do guys...

Wait for the actual APN to arrive and then call HMRC?
Call HMRC now and ask what are they talking about?

in the mean time I've written to TQuinn and DBull

thanks

[webberg]

what do I do guys...

Wait for the actual APN to arrive and then call HMRC?
Call HMRC now and ask what are they talking about?

in the mean time I've written to TQuinn and DBull

thanks

If you're sure you were not in the scheme, wait until you get the APN + 70 days and then tell HMRC.