No To Retro Tax - Ongoing battle against S58 FA2008

[smalldog]

I would be inclined to do review first, any lack of due process as part of the review can be used as evidence in any subsequent tribunal as an example le of further failing.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

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?

2 is always an option, no matter what the outcome of 1.

[the great escape]

If 2 is always an option, I'd be inclined to ask for a review using an elegently worded toolkit from CCW, as per last newsletter.

[OnYourBikeGB]

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.

Perhaps NTRT members should have a secret ballot on how we should proceed, and we should act accordingly immediately? I am of the mind that we have an opportunity here, while political minds are elsewhere, and I don't mean their offshore family trusts. But it won't last long. As soon as QC opinion arrives, we should move and give Hector as little information of our intentions as possible before a new Government arrives and they once again focus their attention on how to screw over the little guy.

[Richard Splash]

2 is always an option, no matter what the outcome of 1.

Clearly something that requires a great deal of thought from everyone DR. Personally I am inclined to give HMRC as little time as possible to regroup, consolidate or establish room for manoeuvre. In this respect a review only serves to delay matters ( the same could be said of the Fraud stance taken by Hector) . Both can be seen as an attempt to put us on the back foot once again. Case in point - original statement to take a number of cases to tribuneral which never came to light..
An appellant taxpayer should be prepared to insist that the procedure is followed properly..... We can insist as much as we like but this does not mean that Hector will comply or even entertain the insistance
Perhaps the way ahead would be we fire both options at once or fire one a week after the other...? Forutne favours the bold.... DR's option 2 seems to be the option with the least amount of dicking around ...

[Morlock]

They clearly came to the meeting armed with the fraud angle. It's all they wanted to talk about. It turned out to be a short meeting.

Clearly they had no intention of negotiating a settlement.
Given that some people are in receipt of APNs, I think time is of the essence.
I don't believe for one minute that a review will lead to HMRC dropping their tax demands or entering into negotation, and I think our only hope of resolution lies in the courts (or on the steps of the courtroom).
I vote that we press ahead with the FTT as quickly as possible.

[funjim]

agreed!!

I vote that we press ahead with the FTT as quickly as possible.

Agree - we're probably near to the end game - think it's time this phase is brought to a conclusion.

[screwthis]

Agree - we're probably near to the end game - think it's time this phase is brought to a conclusion.

+1

[smalldog]

+1

+1, I will go with the majority, lets just get on with the FTT in that case!

[BettySwollocks]

Clearly they had no intention of negotiating a settlement.
Given that some people are in receipt of APNs, I think time is of the essence.
I don't believe for one minute that a review will lead to HMRC dropping their tax demands or entering into negotation, and I think our only hope of resolution lies in the courts (or on the steps of the courtroom).
I vote that we press ahead with the FTT as quickly as possible.

I agree wholeheartedly...