No To Retro Tax - Ongoing battle against S58 FA2008

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

What HMRC said under Oath at the JR

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

Read MacDougall's witness testimony at the JR. I am quoting from the Court transcript here:-

"17. ...It is the policy of HMRC to obtain all the relevant information and documents before entering into any arguments about the efficacy of an avoidance scheme..."

"18. It was not until early 2005 that SI felt it has sufficient information and documents to seek technical advice on the scheme..."

So under oath the "Project Manager" is stating that all due diligence was done before they pulled the trigger. So even they thought [sic] we were self-employed? Hardly fraud if it took George to question that position and by settling on the quiet they then clearly recognised that we were not.

In reality and on the basis of legal opinion we are apparently in the IR35 net and HMRC don't like that idea? Oh please. IR35 has nothing to do with this. They want everyone caught by IR35 as a stated policy and now we find TAA applies they call it fraud?? Sorry, this is the reaction of a cornered feral child who just happens to have a loaded gun in their possession. Given the quotes above and them settling with George on the basis of TAA, where do they stand in the eyes of the law for knowing we were by the argument put forward employed yet turned a blind eye when raising CN's? Yes your Honour, we knew they were employed but we decided to let them out of the PAYE net but now they know they were in it all along we're doing them for fraud."

Perhaps asking HMRC for a written statement to each user affected by this stating their claim that to suggest you were employed is a case of fraud and will be criminally prosecuted if you make that assertion might be helpful.

Note also, that every aspect of our "income" was fully transparent on SAR's. And HMRC by their JR testimony don't suggest that they were lacking what they needed to arrive at a conclusion.

Hang, on! Can someone call Mr. Padmore and tell him that he may have been guilty of fraud? Can someone also call everyone who claimed self-employed on their SAR and then found to be inside IR35 and let them know they are criminals?

This has been rolling on for years and at the last when we have finally got an objective, empirical evidence based opinion of our true status and supported by George, HMRC now decide we're all criminals? Now go review the quotes at the start of this and ask whether you think HMRC are struggling with the location of their elbows. That is a Public Interest matter for sure. Anyone got Gaukes cell number?

BTW, read para 20 in Simon Davis JR testimony. It does clearly state that I was a "member of a firm". To a layman that sounds like an employee. If it feels like an employee, sounds like an employee, reads like and employee then it probably is....." Agreeing with HMRC is fraud? Whatever next?

[OnYourBikeGB]

And it's worth pointing out that if we were to pursue malfeasance against a few HMRC officers, and it was found that they had, without basis, made this threat against us, libelling us, in an attempt to label us as criminals and silence us ... well, I wonder how that would look. Maybe they should look to withdraw that threat before someone takes them seriously.

[smalldog]

And it's worth pointing out that if we were to pursue malfeasance against a few HMRC officers, and it was found that they had, without basis, made this threat against us, libelling us, in an attempt to label us as criminals and silence us ... well, I wonder how that would look. Maybe they should look to withdraw that threat before someone takes them seriously.

We just need someone to provide that threat written down, and then its curtains.

[bananarepublic]

And it's worth pointing out that if we were to pursue malfeasance against a few HMRC officers, and it was found that they had, without basis, made this threat against us, libelling us, in an attempt to label us as criminals and silence us ... well, I wonder how that would look. Maybe they should look to withdraw that threat before someone takes them seriously.

To what extent are they indemnified for their behaviour by HMRC?

They are quite clearly using the fraud accusation to distract people from the real scandal which is HMRC incompetence (TAA would have blown scheme out of water pre 2009) followed by a cover up (TAA blowing their argument out of the water post 2015).

Presumably they were waiting for another scheme user to come forward with TAA so they can claim that somehow we are owning up to something.

[the great escape]

Employment through Discovery

In the beginning, there was self-employment through an IOM intermediary.

Then through the powers of discovery and retrospection, that intermediary was deemed ineffective. The retrospective agrument could be applied because it was wholly exceptional and didn't change the tax payer's position.

But hang on, now without the intermediary, the position has changed. Direct with an agency, check the law and conditions, blimey looks like now we're employed - another act of Discovery.

Nothing fraudulent about that. I guess one good discovery deserves another.

[Resolute B]

Fraud!!!!!! how can that be?

I've always signed my SA return as "to the best of my knowledge and belief". I do not have the knowledge of a tax lawyer and therefore I have paid a company called MontP as my agent who I believe have given me lawful guidance in completing the return. Are the accusations of fraud being thrown about by HMRC dragging MontP into the TAA front and if so are they aware of these recent developments; 400 - 600 of their clients potentially in the dock for fraud!!

[portseven]

The stakes are very high, especially for the HMRC officers in charge. If they can't win, they will fight dirty.

So if this goes against HMRC a couple of people will get a dressing down and put on Garden Leave? Is that what this long fight is all about??

They are worried about their jobs, vs the bankruptcy of 1000's of people and families, the mind boggles how that is even a debate. Chaps do the right thing and fall on your swords, I will help you write your CV if you are looking for work.

[elpinar]

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).
as the risk of appearing stupid.... if you fight and win the argument do you not then set a precednece that screws up millions of IT contractors (including those of us outsiide ir35 with ltd cos) as then they have 1000 plus cases saying ltd cos etc etc are all an illusion and really all those arrangemtns/contrcats are 'disguised employees?

and thats putting aside the 'fraud or not' argument

[BarneyCool]

That's what happens with time travel

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).
as the risk of appearing stupid.... if you fight and win the argument do you not then set a precednece that screws up millions of IT contractors (including those of us outsiide ir35 with ltd cos) as then they have 1000 plus cases saying ltd cos etc etc are all an illusion and really all those arrangemtns/contrcats are 'disguised employees?

and thats putting aside the 'fraud or not' argument

You mess with "the space time continuum" and change the course of future events!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

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).
as the risk of appearing stupid.... if you fight and win the argument do you not then set a precednece that screws up millions of IT contractors (including those of us outsiide ir35 with ltd cos) as then they have 1000 plus cases saying ltd cos etc etc are all an illusion and really all those arrangemtns/contrcats are 'disguised employees?

and thats putting aside the 'fraud or not' argument

We weren't operating through a Ltd Co so I don't see how this is relevant.

In any case, the question of whether we were, or weren't, self-employed is never going to be tested in court.

That's why HMRC have pulled the fraud card in a desperate bid to dig themselves out of a hole.