No To Retro Tax - Ongoing battle against S58 FA2008

[smalldog]

HMRC's objection to TAA

I reckon you've got a right to know.

The agency argument would not apply if we were deemed to have been genuinely self-employed (sole traders).

HMRC could try and prove that we did qualify as self-employed but that would fly in the face of everything they stand for.

Therefore TAA leaves them with a problem.

Their answer?

To allege that we fraudulently declared on our self-assessment that we were self-employed. Amongst other things, if proven, it would mean they could go back 20 years to assess PAYE instead of the normal 6 years.

Our barrister Anne Redston, who is also a Tribunal Judge, does not believe there is any basis for fraud. However, given the seriousness of this, we have instructed her to look at this more closely.

They must feel very cornered to come out with that one! IF they didnt there would be no need to threaten. Its only a good sign and lets hope Anne is as confident with her convictions as HMRC feel threatened. For them to say if you try this on we will push for fraud is particularly dirty tricks, and to think this is basically the govt??? jeez, if they thought that dont you think they would have used it a while back, its blatantly an attempt at a retaliatory strike.

[DotasScandal]

Their answer?
To allege that we fraudulently declared on our self-assessment that we were self-employed

When everything else fails, just accuse your opponent of fraud!

I would take that as a good sign and a clear indication you're doing something very RIGHT, guys! Keep on fighting the good fight.

[MishiMoo]

HMRC's objection to TAA

I reckon you've got a right to know.

The agency argument would not apply if we were deemed to have been genuinely self-employed (sole traders).

HMRC could try and prove that we did qualify as self-employed but that would fly in the face of everything they stand for.

Therefore TAA leaves them with a problem.

Their answer?

To allege that we fraudulently declared on our self-assessment that we were self-employed. Amongst other things, if proven, it would mean they could go back 20 years to assess PAYE instead of the normal 6 years.

Our barrister Anne Redston, who is also a Tribunal Judge, does not believe there is any basis for fraud. However, given the seriousness of this, we have instructed her to look at this more closely.

Sorry, I don't understand this. Do we want TAA to apply or not to apply? As we declared as self-employed you say that TAA does not apply, therefore that must be a good thing, right?

[normalbloke]

Sorry, I don't understand this. Do we want TAA to apply or not to apply? As we declared as self-employed you say that TAA does not apply, therefore that must be a good thing, right?

We want the TAA to apply. Re-read the latest NTRT newsletters and you will see why.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Sorry, I don't understand this. Do we want TAA to apply or not to apply? As we declared as self-employed you say that TAA does not apply, therefore that must be a good thing, right?

Yes we declared as self-employed and, at the time, we had no reason to doubt that. We're just IT bods not tax experts, and we were professionally advised.

However, Anne Redston's opinion is that, in hindsight, we wouldn't have met the criteria of self-employment. It is her opinion that we weren't self-employed and instead there was an agency employment contract (TAA).

HMRC's position is that, if we're now saying we weren't self-employed, then what we declared on our tax returns was fraudulent.

[nevergiveup]

HMRC's objection to TAA

I reckon you've got a right to know.

The agency argument would not apply if we were deemed to have been genuinely self-employed (sole traders).

HMRC could try and prove that we did qualify as self-employed but that would fly in the face of everything they stand for.

Therefore TAA leaves them with a problem.

Their answer?

To allege that we fraudulently declared on our self-assessment that we were self-employed. Amongst other things, if proven, it would mean they could go back 20 years to assess PAYE instead of the normal 6 years.

Our barrister Anne Redston, who is also a Tribunal Judge, does not believe there is any basis for fraud. However, given the seriousness of this, we have instructed her to look at this more closely.

By the time this all comes to an end, I'll be over the 20 year limit anyway.

[BettySwollocks]

Yes we declared as self-employed and, at the time, we had no reason to doubt that. We're just IT bods not tax experts, and we were professionally advised.

However, Anne Redston's opinion is that, in hindsight, we wouldn't have met the criteria of self-employment. It is her opinion that we weren't self-employed and instead there was an agency employment contract (TAA).

HMRC's position is that, if we're now saying we weren't self-employed, then what we declared on our tax returns was fraudulent.

So why didn't they use that argument with "George"...?

[slogger]

Yes we declared as self-employed and, at the time, we had no reason to doubt that. We're just IT bods not tax experts, and we were professionally advised.

However, Anne Redston's opinion is that, in hindsight, we wouldn't have met the criteria of self-employment. It is her opinion that we weren't self-employed and instead there was an agency employment contract (TAA).

HMRC's position is that, if we're now saying we weren't self-employed, then what we declared on our tax returns was fraudulent.

interesting - I vaguely recollect I didn't declare myself as self employed .. wonder how that will pan out.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

So why didn't they use that argument with "George"...?

He was a special case.

That's why he got a deal instead of being threatened with fraud.

ps. sorry forgot this

[WelshRarebit]

So, if we 'drop it' does it go back to not being fraudulent or does it, now HMRC have made the accusation, remain fraud regardless I wonder? Fraud is fraud surely