No To Retro Tax - Ongoing battle against S58 FA2008

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Aren't we liable for what was put on the tax return?

When you declared as self-employed on your return did you know there was anything wrong with that?

If not, when did you first become aware that it might not have been correct?

[nevergiveup]

Stupid question. Aren't we liable for what was put on the tax return? If not, following on logically, we might have a case against Montp if we lose?

Yep it's our responsibility to check our Self Assessment, which we did. Can't see how we would have a case against Montp. They didn't do anything wrong.

[Morlock]

When you declared as self-employed on your return did you know there was anything wrong with that?

If not, when did you first become aware that it might not have been correct?

"Your Honour, the defendant stated on his 2003/2004 tax return that he was self-employed, knowing full well that some retrospective legislation would be passed in 2009 which would try to take away the tax advantages of that self-employment, and that he could then in 2015 - after sufficient time has passed - claim to have been working for an agency all along in order to defeat that legislation. I have never seen a clearer case of premeditated and deliberate fraud than this one, your Honour."

[lucozade]

No To Retro Tax - Ongoing battle against S58 FA2008

What surprises me, is that when HMRC offered George his 50% settlement they did not ask him to sign a non-disclosure agreement. Surely they would have known he would tell us all about the great deal he got from HMRC.

As for the TAA arguement. I suspect that for anyone that has continued in contracting and a LTD company this is a no go. You can bet your last dime that if you claim TAA at FTT an IR35 enquiry will be launched in to all of your subsiquent tax years since you left MTM. I very much doubt QDOS/PCG would represent you and without them; funding a defense would ruin you.

Lets pray Watkins and co. can show HMRC up for the thieves that they are.

Really? I would have thought that our legal representation would be warning of this because if not its a huge risk to a great number of us.

[screwthis]

They will find it extremely difficult to prove fraud. It will have to go in front of a criminal court. And the prosecution would have to prove that you knowingly made a false declaration in order to secure a financial advantage. Given that the financial advantage wasn't even known as a possibility until a few months ago, there's no way that you can be proven to have foreseen it, let alone schemed to do it, many years ago. I seriously doubt that the CPS would even contemplate going after a prosecution on such a thin argument as this.

WHS

Having sat on a jury I can say that the jury has to be VERY sure that the accused are guilty.
I sat on an attempted murder case where the accused was guilty but got off because there were a few people who wouldn't back down from the "we can't be sure" point of view.

It is a grey area open to all sorts of interpretation. The onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused purposefully and knowingly set about to commit fraud.
That makes it very unlikely that we would be found guilty. We were trying to arrange our tax affairs (i.e. tax avoidance plain and simple). That WAS the reality and that will be the reality that the jury will see. Fraud? Please! We weren't trying to deceive anyone. The history of the case will be laid before the jury. They will see from IR35 to BN66 to TAA. They will see TAX AVOIDANCE TAX AVOIDANCE TAX AVOIDANCE and then an attempt (TAA) to defend our position. This does NOT amount to knowing and willing fraud. They know it, we know it and there is no way 10 out of 12 jurors will say guilty to fraud. It's too grey and too obvious what our motives were.

I say press on with TAA. Let them threaten. There is no way we will be found guilty.
They are the ones who committed fraud and that will come out in the high court.

[screwthis]

When you declared as self-employed on your return did you know there was anything wrong with that?

If not, when did you first become aware that it might not have been correct?

Well I don't know about you but I would have to listen to a QC.

[screwthis]

Self employed

So, if they are going to put forward the claim that we were self employed then there should be no NIC due.

Question: If a contractor is found to be within IR35 after having not ticked the box is that fraud?
Surely in that event all they can say is, "we believe you were in IR35 after all" here is an extra tax bill with interest and penalties.

[bananarepublic]

Not sure how one can be fraudulently self employed? Personally I was not employed at the time so I declared self employment on my tax return. What else should I have put? Whether I should have been employed should be a question for a tribunal? How does changing your mind years after the fact based on new information constitute fraud?

Why didn't HMRC investigate this in the first instance? They did their investigation and issued closure notices. Are they now going to re issue those notices? What about people who have settled?

Are they going to take into account individual circumstances? It may well be certain individuals were actually self employed. They will have '000's of cases to review.

Wouldn't it be very difficult for HMRC to prove fraud or even negligence on our part given that most of us followed professional advice? Or do HMRC now view this as a massive conspiracy?

I think HMRC must be severely rattled to come up with this.

[helen7]

So I think what HMRC are saying is we ticked the box to say we were not subject to IR35 on our tax returns.

If we now claim that we were IR35 they may deduce that we knowlingly lied on our original returns.

I imagine we would need to demonstrate why we believe now that years 2002-2007 were subject to IR35 and; why our status has chanced since we submitted them.

[BarneyCool]

Is it the same kind of fraud as:

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.

Telling us that we are bound by the test cases that never occurred?
Or
Lying to parliament?
Or
Backdating law?
Or
Lying in court?
Or
Raiding MP's offices without the correct warrant?
Or
Arresting WG whilst on his way to court to defend a client and confiscating his papers only to be released later in the day without charge?
Or taking him to court for fraud only to completely bottle it and not even give evidence?

They are dirty cnuts that think they are untouchable!!!