No To Retro Tax - Ongoing battle against S58 FA2008

[OnYourBikeGB]

Yes, I thought that the F word would scare everyone.

I'm glad I was wrong.

I have an F word or two for them. I think they have made it worse on themselves. After all the lies and bulltulip we have have had to put up from them down the years, now they have the nerve to call us fraudsters? They can say or think what they like, but we never, not once, not ever, broke the law. They deserve everything that is coming at them. As far the agency argument goes, as they have said to us, they should have thought about that at the time.

[the great escape]

Fraud vs. Fraud

Nice to see TaxShouldntBeTaxing back on the mount. Stirring stuff.

New argument - HMRC have committed fraud.

[Drizzt]

Nice to see TaxShouldntBeTaxing back on the mount. Stirring stuff.

New argument - HMRC have committed fraud.

+1

welcome back TSBT

[DonkeyRhubarb]

The way forward

Assuming, as I fully expect, we get a robust response from Anne Redston on the fraud angle, hopefully this week, then we need to start pushing ahead. Delay only serves HMRC.

We have been given 2 options for bringing TAA into the frame.

1. Everyone requests a review

http://www.mckieandco.com/Reviews_-_..._or_Shield.pdf

2. Everyone applies to the FTT

We are still chewing this over with our advisors but if anyone has any views please feel free to chip in.

[Resolute B]

Assuming, as I fully expect, we get a robust response from Anne Redston on the fraud angle, hopefully this week, then we need to start pushing ahead. Delay only serves HMRC.

We have been given 2 options for bringing TAA into the frame.

1. Everyone requests a review

http://www.mckieandco.com/Reviews_-_..._or_Shield.pdf


2. Everyone applies to the FTT

We are still chewing this over with our advisors but if anyone has any views please feel free to chip in.

From a only a quick read of the article on HMRCs review process, flawed conduct seems to be a worrying theme. Further to DRs call for "pushing ahead", it does not seem likely that a review will serve that purpose.

[the great escape]

Assuming, as I fully expect, we get a robust response from Anne Redston on the fraud angle, hopefully this week, then we need to start pushing ahead. Delay only serves HMRC.

We have been given 2 options for bringing TAA into the frame.

1. Everyone requests a review

http://www.mckieandco.com/Reviews_-_..._or_Shield.pdf

2. Everyone applies to the FTT

We are still chewing this over with our advisors but if anyone has any views please feel free to chip in.

Thanks DR. do we only get one shot at it i.e. 1 or 2 OR is there the luxury of 1 then 2 if 1 fails?

[TAF4]

Fig leaf or Shield?

Assuming, as I fully expect, we get a robust response from Anne Redston on the fraud angle, hopefully this week, then we need to start pushing ahead. Delay only serves HMRC.

We have been given 2 options for bringing TAA into the frame.

1. Everyone requests a review

http://www.mckieandco.com/Reviews_-_..._or_Shield.pdf

2. Everyone applies to the FTT

We are still chewing this over with our advisors but if anyone has any views please feel free to chip in.

We have an establishment that is willing to turn a blind eye to all forms of misconduct in public office. It is increasingly clear that this has been going on since at least the 70's and probably before.
The HMRC Ombudsman, established as an independent authority, is party to the cover up of malfeasance, and even the judiciary have been seen to adopt a partisan position upholding the establishment's interpretation of the law.

The conclusion to the document you link to states:

'Conclusion
The right of a taxpayer to require HMRC to review a Decision, construed purposively, is an important one which gives substantial protection to the taxpayer and imposes onerous duties on HMRC. It is clear
that HMRC do not give proper weight
to those duties and that their practice
fails to comply with them in a number of important respects. An appellant taxpayer should be prepared to insist that the procedure is followed properly and be prepared to enforce it with judicial review proceedings, in appropriate circumstances, if necessary.'

That doesn't bode well either. We are likely to get the same old bull tulip and provide Hector with more time to come up with fresh interpretations or even rewrite the law.
My take is to now take the fight to them. Go to the FTT and make this entire stitch up public.

[eek]

Not being a member and so not involved. From my reading of the above the last chance anyone will have of avoiding those very large bills from hmrc is joining ntrtg asap before the drawbridge is closed

[lucozade]

Assuming, as I fully expect, we get a robust response from Anne Redston on the fraud angle, hopefully this week, then we need to start pushing ahead. Delay only serves HMRC.

We have been given 2 options for bringing TAA into the frame.

1. Everyone requests a review

http://www.mckieandco.com/Reviews_-_..._or_Shield.pdf

2. Everyone applies to the FTT

We are still chewing this over with our advisors but if anyone has any views please feel free to chip in.

Can we do both?

[the great escape]

Assuming, as I fully expect, we get a robust response from Anne Redston on the fraud angle, hopefully this week, then we need to start pushing ahead. Delay only serves HMRC.

We have been given 2 options for bringing TAA into the frame.

1. Everyone requests a review

http://www.mckieandco.com/Reviews_-_..._or_Shield.pdf

2. Everyone applies to the FTT

We are still chewing this over with our advisors but if anyone has any views please feel free to chip in.

If we have any more queries about the TAA strategy going fwds (pros, cons, what ifs) that might not be suitable for airing on the forum re: Hector, what about submitting them to a common point (NTRT?) then sending out responses, attached to next newsletter. Or better to wait for QC response first?