No To Retro Tax - Ongoing battle against S58 FA2008

[Britspud]

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.

I wasn't stating facts...I was expressing the worry that it might be true. And hoping someone would tell me it isn't!

[normalbloke]

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.

I think that's exactly want NTRT want. And it's more of a vendetta against one particular promoter rather than the contracting body as a whole (with respect to S58 anyway).

[NotAllThere]

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.

You can't be tried twice for the same instance of tax crime, but you can be tried separately for each violation. Usually though, such things are "taken into consideration." Of course what you were doing wasn't a crime, so double jeopardy doesn't apply.

[webberg]

I think that's exactly want NTRT want. And it's more of a vendetta against one particular promoter rather than the contracting body as a whole (with respect to S58 anyway).

Be careful what you wish for.

New laws applicable from today? Probably not.

New law giving less room to wriggle from the "original" retrospective date (oxymoron?). Probably not.

What NTRT want is a revised start date for the law, not new law. Entirely different focus and argument.

(I'm making my own arrogant assumption that I know what NTRT want here which as I'm not a paying member and a late comer to the party is presumptuous. Apologies in advance if this is incorrect.)

[BrilloPad]

You can't be tried twice for the same instance of tax crime, but you can be tried separately for each violation. Usually though, such things are "taken into consideration." Of course what you were doing wasn't a crime, so double jeopardy doesn't apply.

It might be made a crime retrospectively yet!

[Stoic]

APN withdrawal

Hi all,
I've had the usual APN warning letters, then actual APN letters, for a handful of years 2005+. Duly sent off to MontP for info.

This weekend an HMRC brown-lope hits the mat containing a notice of withdrawal for each of the APNs just raised. No explanation, just a simple and short apology.

Anyone else receive withdrawals?

[OnYourBikeGB]

MP Letter

A new letter from MP dropped on the mat. Nothing too new except for a projected timeline which shouldn't come as too much of a shock.

[OnYourBikeGB]

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.

Let's hope they stick to that. I see little point in pursuing us if the George argument has merit. The principle of creating retrospective tax legislation has already been established in their favour. I can't speak for NTRT, but I'd agree that they are not seeking that the law be changed, they were only fighting the retrospective nature of it. I think we are all coming to conclusion that this is a lost cause, but that's not necessarily the same as us losing.

[Taffia]

A new letter from MP dropped on the mat. Nothing too new except for a projected timeline which shouldn't come as too much of a shock.

Didn't get this one, but got a letter from MP today with a procedure to follow upon receiving an APN.

[OnYourBikeGB]

Didn't get this one, but got a letter from MP today with a procedure to follow upon receiving an APN.

That's the one. I was just referring to the speculation at the end. There wasn't much to get excited about in it, most of it has appeared here.