No To Retro Tax - Ongoing battle against S58 FA2008

[lilo]

Brown Envelope arrived

I thought they'd finally gotten round to sending APN but it was a letter informing me that my CTD is over 6 years old so I will no longer earn any interest on it!

[BrilloPad]

This is just outrageous. The problem is it feels like they will easily get away with it. They are above the law...

They think they are the law...

[elpinar]

there was a message on my ansa phone last night asking me to call them ..... haha.... and that if whoever it was who called wasnt there i could talk to any of his collagues......

and i thought April fools was last week!!!

suffice to say .... i have not felt the need to return their call ... although i could report them as i subscribe to the no junk mail or unsoliciited calls bits

[Fireship]

Original letter from 2008 sent to taxpayer.

Date
Our ref
Your ref
NI Number

Dear Mr

Blah blah blah

Given this you may now wish to submit an amended return for 2006-2007 to reflect that the partnership income is chargeable.

Blah blah blah

Yours sincerely

Copy of the original now supplied by HMRC.

Date
Our ref
Your ref
NI Number

Section 9a TMA 1970 Notice

Dear Mr

Blah blah blah

Given this you may now wish to submit an amended return for 2006-2007 to reflect that the partnership income is chargeable.

Blah blah blah

Yours sincerely

Hmm, what if it states "Section 9a 1970 Notice" instead of "Section 9a TMA 1970 Notice"?

[BolshieBastard]

They're no different from you and me except they have all signed the Official Secrets Act.

releasing confidential information will bring loss of job, loss of freedom (jail time) and a massive fine.

So, 50,000 contractors? £100 each. Is that enough?

The Official Secrets Act is no longer relevant to the Civil Service. It was dropped when I was in the CS years ago (although I did get to sign the said Act when I joined) and replaced with a Code of Conduct booklet and disciplinary action for incorrect use of official information ie using government databases to track and ex (I personally know one person who was walked off site for doing this!)

Of course civil servants with access to very sensitive or secret information may still have to sign.

as to the point of some doctoring letters to include stuff that wasnt on the original, yes, of course this went on and clearly still does. Years ago, letter went to a typing pool but virtually all Civil Servants in DWP, HMRC etc now compile letters on their own desktop or via stock repositories so is very easy to do.

[BolshieBastard]

"Ah, well, your honour. It was just a technical problem with the mail merge templates."

The point is, a court order isnt legal if it doesnt contain the correct information. The same thing applies here and they cannot (or rather should not be able to) argue that its a simple oversight, mistake or gremlin in the works.

Any Tribunal Chairman or judge worth their salt would spot this in seconds if brought to their attention.

[ASB]

The point is, a court order isnt legal if it doesnt contain the correct information. The same thing applies here and they cannot (or rather should not be able to) argue that its a simple oversight, mistake or gremlin in the works.

Any Tribunal Chairman or judge worth their salt would spot this in seconds if brought to their attention.

It was a failed attempt at humour.

I think you can be certain that the hmrc will try very hard to persuade it is valid. If they fail in this they are dead.

from my limited research the position is as clear as a opaque thing. There is some case law which supports a view that the omission of the section reference does not prove necessarily fatal. It is the contents and the wording in any individual case.

However there is also anecdotal evidence from accounting web etc that when challenged and it has become clear that a trip to the specials will ensue that hmrc have often withdrawn.

Given the correspondence enquiring and then silence from hmrc it does not seem a ig stretch to consider they had made a general enquiry and been satisfied.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

It was a failed attempt at humour.

I think you can be certain that the hmrc will try very hard to persuade it is valid. If they fail in this they are dead.

from my limited research the position is as clear as a opaque thing. There is some case law which supports a view that the omission of the section reference does not prove necessarily fatal. It is the contents and the wording in any individual case.

However there is also anecdotal evidence from accounting web etc that when challenged and it has become clear that a trip to the specials will ensue that hmrc have often withdrawn.

Given the correspondence enquiring and then silence from hmrc it does not seem a ig stretch to consider they had made a general enquiry and been satisfied.

The omission of the tax section reference is not at issue here.

It's the fact that the taxpayer requested a copy of a letter they'd previously been sent and HMRC supplied an edited version with the reference inserted.

[ASB]

The omission of the tax section reference is not at issue here.

It's the fact that the taxpayer requested a copy of a letter they'd previously been sent and HMRC supplied an edited version with the reference inserted.

I realise that. And it is a major issue. But does that invalidate the original? Obviously it taints any evidence.

I find it difficult to believe that hmrc would deliberately reproduce a forgery. After all it is going to be common practice to request copies of things you already have.

So there wil be a plausible explanatil for this administrative oversight. Whether it will be believed or not is a different matter.

But it is another arrow in the quiver. And slowly but surely they are mounting up.

[lucozade]

I realise that. And it is a major issue. But does that invalidate the original? Obviously it taints any evidence.

I find it difficult to believe that hmrc would deliberately reproduce a forgery. After all it is going to be common practice to request copies of things you already have.

So there wil be a plausible explanatil for this administrative oversight. Whether it will be believed or not is a different matter.

But it is another arrow in the quiver. And slowly but surely they are mounting up.

It's fraud plain and simple.

If I did that in my line of work I'd be sacked.