No To Retro Tax - Ongoing battle against S58 FA2008

[OnYourBikeGB]

You're leaving bloody mindedness out of the equation. Imagine the bashing Lyn Homer will get from media/PAC etc...I would bet she'll be willing to try anything to avoid being brought down publicly on an indefensible position by that poisoned dwarf, Hodge! They'll do anything they can to delay/obfusticate. If they know they're fecked on the TAA front but think there's even a 1% chance of being allowed to go back 20 years by claiming fraud, I'm sure they'll try it.

And when they lose, and they will, how is she going to explain that not only did they blow S58, but they maliciously abused the system in an attempt to stitch up a couple hundreds if not thousands of innocent people, accusing them of a crime they didn't commit and wasting God knows how much time effort and money? As was pointed out previously, they are a machine. This is only personal to a few individuals in HMRC. To pull this one off might well be above their pay grade, doomed to failure and further humiliation to those further up the chain.

[Britspud]

And when they lose, and they will, how is she going to explain that not only did they blow S58, but they maliciously abused the system in an attempt to stitch up a couple hundreds if not thousands of innocent people, accusing them of a crime they didn't commit and wasting God knows how much time effort and money? As was pointed out previously, they are a machine. This is only personal to a few individuals in HMRC. To pull this one off might well be above their pay grade, doomed to failure and further humiliation to those further up the chain.

I hope you're right...as DR said, the stakes are very high for certain senior HMRC managers over this. As well they should be, although I bet in the worst case (from their viewpoint) the repercussions on them personally will be nothing like as bad as for someone in the private sector displaying that level of incompetence.

[bananarepublic]

All I know is that none of us have committed fraud!

Compared to the other schemes I looked at back in 2001 Montpeliers was positively saint like. The disclosure and compliance aspect of the scheme was its biggest selling point. Rammed home during the presentation. It was the only one that declared the income on the tax return. All the others I looked at relied on being under the radar.

Ironic that we are now being accused of fraud.

[bananarepublic]

So the question remains. What do they need in order to be able to push the 20 year rule through?
Can they just say we have reason to believe or do they have to prove it?
If so, where and to whom do they need to prove it?

There must be a definition of what passes as deliberate behaviour and what the protocol is for getting that to stick.

Perhaps someone with more knowledge of this aspect of the tax system can opine. I would have thought that they can stitch you up for this then you appeal via a tribunal.

Looking at CH53700 HMRC say that deliberate behaviour is knowingly giving HMRC an inaccurate document/return.

So in our case presumably they allege that we knew that the TAA argument applied to us but knowingly said we were self employed. Which is quite risible given they didn't think of it. Or our advisers.

[centurian]

Keep one thing in perspective.... the fact they are pulling this stunt in the first place - is because the are getting desperate.

[BolshieBastard]

Keep one thing in perspective.... the fact they are pulling this stunt in the first place - is because the are getting desperate.

This.

When I was a benefits adjudication officer, people used to appeal that they should be getting more money.

In writing the Dept's response to the appeal, we were 'instructed' (although Adj off's were supposed to be independent and I could explain more about that particular wheeze!) to put in the submission that although the appellant could win, equally the Dept could win and the current amount of benefit could be reduced.

The clear intention was to try and dissuade the appellant from continuing the appeal and to be happy with their lot!

That said, Ive no doubt should HMRC lose this war, each and every one of us still contracting will be subjected to IR35 investigations, even if its only current contracts.

[lucozade]

Keep one thing in perspective.... the fact they are pulling this stunt in the first place - is because the are getting desperate.

Yip it does sound very desperate.

Retrospection puts paid to any of us having made fraudulent claims on our self assessment returns.

[centurian]

So now the cards on the table, why couldn't/wouldn't MP use the TAA argument

I'm guessing it doesn't remove the overall liability - but pushes the liability in the direction of the scheme promoter.

[Britspud]

So now the cards on the table, why couldn't/wouldn't MP use the TAA argument

I'm guessing it doesn't remove the overall liability - but pushes the liability in the direction of the scheme promoter.

Because MTM is challenging S58 and not TAA. And as you say, TAA might not help them in terms of liability. Mind you, I'm sure the agency concerned was suitably independent of MTM and has long since been mothballed!

[bananarepublic]

Because MTM is challenging S58 and not TAA. And as you say, TAA might not help them in terms of liability. Mind you, I'm sure the agency concerned was suitably independent of MTM and has long since been mothballed!

Montpelier can't support the TAA because they would be condemning themselves.

The reason HMRC allege fraud is two fold. First to get over the hurdle of not being able to go back 6 years. Secondly so they transfer the tax liability back to us (I would presume).

I would have thought the fraud hurdle is quite high. Merely suggesting careless behaviour is not enough because they can only go back 6 years.

Mind you they can create a whole new tax crime - fraudulent self employment.