No To Retro Tax - Ongoing battle against S58 FA2008

[bananarepublic]

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

Don't think so. Agency Contracts and PSCs are dealt with in separate sections of the ITEPA regulations.

[bananarepublic]

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.

How can you be sure of this? I would have thought this is critical to the TAA argument.

[Morlock]

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.

If HMRC thought my declaration of being self-employed was not true, then why - after having conducted their thorough investigation - did they send me a tax demand which included Class 4 NI Contributions?

So: I thought I was self-employed, HMRC thought I was self-employed, but it just so happens that given the facts the FTTT will probably disagree for purposes of establishing my tax liability. No fraud there, folks.

[elpinar]

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.

I mean if we are now Ltd - same person .... same job ... cake and eat it springs to mind .. so you solve the early years but shoot yourslef in the foot for the current ones

[bananarepublic]

What happens now?

Given that HMRC are throwing fraud allegations around what are they going to do about it?

We have all been issued closure notices. These are supposed to be issued when an investigation is concluded. Are these going to be reissued based in 'new' information? Given that the information the George argument is based on was in the public domain 10+ years ago what would be the basis for re issuing the notices?

Or are they going to take the fraud argument forward to the tribunal and let them decide?

Surely they are as out of time on the fraud allegation as they would be on the basis of why the George argument works in our favour?

[nevergiveup]

If HMRC thought my declaration of being self-employed was not true, then why - after having conducted their thorough investigation - did they send me a tax demand which included Class 4 NI Contributions?

So: I thought I was self-employed, HMRC thought I was self-employed, but it just so happens that given the facts the FTT will probably disagree for purposes of establishing my tax liability. No fraud there, folks.

Love it. HMRC need to make up their minds!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

How can you be sure of this? I would have thought this is critical to the TAA argument.

You are correct, not being self-employed is critical to the TAA argument.

But if, based on the new analysis, we say that we weren't self-employed, do you think HMRC are going to go to court and argue that we were?

By alleging fraud, HMRC are attempting to still collect the revenue without arguing against TAA.

- OK we accept you weren't self-employed
- However, that means you fraudulently declared yourself as self-employed on your self-assessment

[the great escape]

You are correct, not being self-employed is critical to the TAA argument.

But if, based on the new analysis, we say that we weren't self-employed, do you think HMRC are going to go to court and argue that we were?

By alleging fraud, HMRC are attempting to still collect the revenue without arguing against TAA.

- OK we accept you weren't self-employed
- However, that means you fraudulently declared yourself as self-employed on your self-assessment

Did we need the scheme to be self-employed is the Q? for me.

[elpinar]

another question

if an APN is withdrawn is that like double jeopardy where they cant then later issue another one for the same tax year ... or is that just the world in my little fantasy land ?

(not that i have a withdrawn APN)

[orientalist]

APN and CTDs

Advice please, is it best to use your oldest CTD last when paying APNs, in case something crawls out of the woodwork and further charges come our way retrospectively, or does it not make any difference?

Also I had a letter from MTM advising that one year for which i received an APN was not a notifiable arrangement hence APN should be withdraw, do i write to HMRC explaining this and get it withdrawn, or will this impact TAA argument?

Thanks in advance.

Now we have got to the pointy and shouty stage how long do we think until we get a conclusion?