No To Retro Tax - Ongoing battle against S58 FA2008

[mrkitchen]

Could do with some good news, seems all one way at the moment and not our way

[webberg]

Did you mean 2016?

Doh!

Yes 2016.

[the great escape]

George anomaly

HMRC conceeded the George argument with a Tesco like discount, knowing full well that he probably didn't have the Bread and Honey to take it to the FTT. Why did Her Majesty's blaggards not chance their arm, say 'No, needs higher examination', at which point George would have no choice but to yield. It would be a brutal way to run a justice system, putting pockets of justice out there, just beyond the affordable, for the minions to weigh up against the costs. But that's the way it is.

Does it go beyond costs for HMRC to avoid FTT if they can? If they loose at FTT, can there be reparations involved which don't get discussed in 'ok, we'll do ya a deal mate'.

Would the brothers please ponder.

[Britspud]

isnt the more likely win the george argument - any idea of dates with that one?

From what I understand, we're potentially a long way away from that one too. There are three options for HMRC:

1. Concede the George argument, accepting the bad odds for winning and so drop it
2. Offer a deal to settle
3. Let it go to court and chance their arm

I suspect it'll be number 3. If that happens then we're still a long way away, and the APNs will have hit everyone already. 2 might still drag on because there's clearly a lot of folks who can't even afford a deal or won't deal. So 2 and 3 will still result in waiting for courts and appeals in all likelihood.

[Britspud]

HMRC conceeded the George argument with a Tesco like discount, knowing full well that he probably didn't have the Bread and Honey to take it to the FTT. Why did Her Majesty's blaggards not chance their arm, say 'No, needs higher examination', at which point George would have no choice but to yield. It would be a brutal way to run a justice system, putting pockets of justice out there, just beyond the affordable, for the minions to weigh up against the costs. But that's the way it is.

Does it go beyond costs for HMRC to avoid FTT if they can? If they loose at FTT, can there be reparations involved which don't get discussed in 'ok, we'll do ya a deal mate'.

Would the brothers please ponder.

I'd hazard a guess that it's to do with their internal rules...the LSS policy where they shouldn't take something to court if it's less than a 50% chance of winning. When George went to them originally, I guess they'll have sought their own counsel's opinion...and the fact that they then went for a settlement is hugely telling, which is why all this is so exciting.

My worry is that, with so much at stake... for HMRC I mean, in terms of a big failure to catch the evil avoiders ... they'll ignore their guidelines and go for belligerence. Or try some underhand trickery.

My other worries with this approach are that

1. The arguments being used might hurt our arguments at the FTT about S58
2. Even if we go to tribunal with the George argument, and they lose...they might still win the S58 one and then try and continue to pursue us

I may have missed it...but has the settlement that George agreed with them been published?

[BrilloPad]

From what I understand, we're potentially a long way away from that one too. There are three options for HMRC:

1. Concede the George argument, accepting the bad odds for winning and so drop it
2. Offer a deal to settle
3. Let it go to court and chance their arm

I suspect it'll be number 3. If that happens then we're still a long way away, and the APNs will have hit everyone already. 2 might still drag on because there's clearly a lot of folks who can't even afford a deal or won't deal. So 2 and 3 will still result in waiting for courts and appeals in all likelihood.

I concur. HMRC want to make an example of us. They want it to go all the way.

If they were smart they would go for number 2! With hundreds already settled, they could settle hundreds more. Divide and conquer.....

[webberg]

I'd hazard a guess that it's to do with their internal rules...the LSS policy where they shouldn't take something to court if it's less than a 50% chance of winning. When George went to them originally, I guess they'll have sought their own counsel's opinion...and the fact that they then went for a settlement is hugely telling, which is why all this is so exciting.

My worry is that, with so much at stake... for HMRC I mean, in terms of a big failure to catch the evil avoiders ... they'll ignore their guidelines and go for belligerence. Or try some underhand trickery.

My other worries with this approach are that

1. The arguments being used might hurt our arguments at the FTT about S58
2. Even if we go to tribunal with the George argument, and they lose...they might still win the S58 one and then try and continue to pursue us

I may have missed it...but has the settlement that George agreed with them been published?

I'd offer the following:

HMRC almost never depart from the LSS. They are not however a normal litigant. By that I mean that even where they have a low chance of winning, they may continue litigation if they consider it is important for public policy. There have been many cases where HMRC has pursued beyond bounds of reasonableness a case they were bound to lose. They once even won a case and changed the law to the position the taxpayer claimed! (Stokes v Costain).

I'm not familiar with the detail of the George settlement or the circumstances. I do however have an idea of how that works based on comments here. (Warning; if I can backsolve it, so can HMRC and others).

My guess is that the circumstances of the claim George made would have made a defence impossible. That may have been a procedural issue (i.e. years not open) or a particular set of circumstances in the arrangements.

The fact that HMRC went to QC means little. This area is a major work stream for them and if they have a rogue case, the question to QC may have been "How do we isolate it?".

HMRC will not resort to trickery. Why would a civil servant with nothing to gain personally and potentially a lot to lose, resort to action that might get him/her fired? They apply the rules incompetently but that is why advisers exist - to keep them within the rules.

I doubt the George settlement details have been published as that would breach confidentiality. That is both good and bad. It's good in that you are not bound by whatever interpretation was used to arrive at the result. It's bad because you will not be able to force HMRC to admit it exists and unless George waives his rights, will not be able to use it in Court.

[BrilloPad]

HMRC will not resort to trickery. Why would a civil servant with nothing to gain personally and potentially a lot to lose, resort to action that might get him/her fired? They apply the rules incompetently but that is why advisers exist - to keep them within the rules.

NTRT can prove that HMRC have misled parliament.

The HMRC officers have a "Jimmy Saville" complex. They believe they can do what they want, when they want.

[the great escape]

I'd hazard a guess that it's to do with their internal rules...the LSS policy where they shouldn't take something to court if it's less than a 50% chance of winning. When George went to them originally, I guess they'll have sought their own counsel's opinion...and the fact that they then went for a settlement is hugely telling, which is why all this is so exciting.

My worry is that, with so much at stake... for HMRC I mean, in terms of a big failure to catch the evil avoiders ... they'll ignore their guidelines and go for belligerence. Or try some underhand trickery.

My other worries with this approach are that

1. The arguments being used might hurt our arguments at the FTT about S58
2. Even if we go to tribunal with the George argument, and they lose...they might still win the S58 one and then try and continue to pursue us

I may have missed it...but has the settlement that George agreed with them been published?

Your comment BS in 2. has left me wondering about double jeopardy - can we be turned over for the same tax crime twice? Once acquited, we should be allowed to roam the contracting landscape as free men. Can send HMRC a copy of the movie if they need to refer to it during tea breaks.

[webberg]

NTRT can prove that HMRC have misled parliament.

The HMRC officers have a "Jimmy Saville" complex. They believe they can do what they want, when they want.

If HMRC has misled their employer (and often you'll find that HMRC are simply telling HMT/HMG what they want to hear because any other message is unacceptable) then that may not help you.

Law is not made on evidence. It is made for the public good whether supported by evidence, good or bad.

If it was the case that law could be changed because the evidence was flawed, half of our politicians would be in jail over the various wars and conflicts they've dragged us into.

No, I'm afraid that even if you could prove beyond all doubt that HMRC's calculations were incorrect and deliberately so in order to pursue a pernicious vendetta against contractors, the worst would be a few Civil servants lose their jobs and new "better" laws introduced.

HMRC are not unique in their arrogance. Part of the deal for a Civil Servant is air cover from individual error or departmental error in exchange for low pay, crap conditions, endless frustration and a nice pension.