No To Retro Tax - Ongoing battle against S58 FA2008

[Laxmi]

WHS

You should make the representations, against the APNs, that Montpelier provide.

Only if HMRC reject this, and give you the 30 further days to pay, should you consider paying.

Yep, intend to wait for what MP say before taking any action w.r.t. paying to stop penalties/surcharges.
Thanks.

[elpinar]

WHS

You should make the representations, against the APNs, that Montpelier provide.

Only if HMRC reject this, and give you the 30 further days to pay, should you consider paying.

bascially the penatly is yours and yours alone - so if you have ctds why woudl you not pay when you get to the end of the 90 days or whatever period it is ?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

bascially the penatly is yours and yours alone - so if you have ctds why woudl you not pay when you get to the end of the 90 days or whatever period it is ?

You've got 90 days to make representations. If you make representations everything is put on hold until HMRC respond. Assuming they reject the representations then you get another 30 days to pay up.

Only when the 30 days has expired would you face penalties.

[MishiMoo]

You've got 90 days to make representations. If you make representations everything is put on hold until HMRC respond. Assuming they reject the representations then you get another 30 days to pay up.

Only when the 30 days has expired would you face penalties.

Don't forget to send your representations by recorded delivery on a Thursday - today would be perfect - so as to arrive for them just before the weekend. It's only fair, after all!

[TAF4]

<snip>If you have an apn and pay up now, you just lose access to the money and little harm has been done.

You are quite right in what you say. However that assumes Hector plays fair.

My biggest concern is that we may never get the money refunded despite winning at FTT. How long do you think these ****'s can spin out the appeals processes? it's been around 8 years already. another 10 years will probably see me in a wooden overcoat.

[elpinar]

You've got 90 days to make representations. If you make representations everything is put on hold until HMRC respond. Assuming they reject the representations then you get another 30 days to pay up.

Only when the 30 days has expired would you face penalties.

do we KNOW everything is put on hold ...or we just assume

if the former would have been nice if MTM hasd said that when they said to write

[BrilloPad]

Letter received from HMRC

Our advisors CCW received a letter from HMRC yesterday, covering the fraud angle. They have backtracked a bit from what was said at the meeting.

But what is clear is they still don't get it.

They have latched on to the use of the word “sham” in the original letter from CCW.

Sham in the legal sense would mean all parties knowingly entered into false arrangements.

That is clearly not the case here. When we used the scheme we believed it was a fully legal structure, and we were told it was backed by Counsel opinion. I have no doubt whatsoever that MTM also believed this.

Why on earth would any of us leave a perfectly legal structure like a Ltd Co, even with the fear of IR35, to join a sham? It's utterly preposterous.

At the time we were using the scheme we had no reason to doubt being self-employed.

It's only recently, and ironically as a result of HMRC's own actions in the George case, that we have been advised that this wasn't the case and that there was an agency contract. It's hardly our fault if HMRC shot themselves in the foot last year by settling with George.

Once again HMRC are trying to make us pay the price for their mistakes.

This is the type of post that should be in some sort of summary thread! Luckily I was bored so went back through - but good chance I could have missed it. And I suspect many will miss it...

[mrkitchen]

Wouldn't it be best to make representation close to the end of the 90 day period , that will ensure the longest delay ?

[the great escape]

Letter received from HMRC

Our advisors CCW received a letter from HMRC yesterday, covering the fraud angle. They have backtracked a bit from what was said at the meeting.

But what is clear is they still don't get it.

They have latched on to the use of the word “sham” in the original letter from CCW.

Sham in the legal sense would mean all parties knowingly entered into false arrangements.

That is clearly not the case here. When we used the scheme we believed it was a fully legal structure, and we were told it was backed by Counsel opinion. I have no doubt whatsoever that MTM also believed this.

Why on earth would any of us leave a perfectly legal structure like a Ltd Co, even with the fear of IR35, to join a sham? It's utterly preposterous.

At the time we were using the scheme we had no reason to doubt being self-employed.

It's only recently, and ironically as a result of HMRC's own actions in the George case, that we have been advised that this wasn't the case and that there was an agency contract. It's hardly our fault if HMRC shot themselves in the foot last year by settling with George.

Once again HMRC are trying to make us pay the price for their mistakes.

Totally surprised that this is the grounds for the fraud angle. Weak IMHO. Check out Parker vs. Huitson at the HC...

The Background
5. Until 2000 he might have sought to gain a tax advantage by supplying his services to end users through an intermediary (such as a company of which he was a majority shareholder and director). However the Finance Act 2000, Schedule 12, provided that workers supplying services through an intermediary should be treated "as if they were employees rather than self-employed persons for income tax and National Insurance contributions purposes"

The Arrangements
10. HMRC does not allege that these arrangements are a sham, that is, that they do not truly reflect the legal rights and obligations of the respective parties to them. In that sense the arrangements have genuine business efficacy. The Claimant could not, for example, claim that he was entitled to his "fair share" of the profits of the Partnership by virtue only of the services that he supplied to end users: under the arrangements his claim to such profits must be based upon the interest in possession that he enjoys under the Trust.

It was the real deal, just didn't work.

[elpinar]

Wouldn't it be best to make representation close to the end of the 90 day period , that will ensure the longest delay ?

well obvioulsy - but only if you are 100% sure that the penalties dont get lumped on regardless ...

personally i dont see how when if they suspend it the penaltities still stand - but if you write in any kind of nonsense you might want it would stop the clock.. seems illogical

where is it wirten in black and white that representation stops panalty and surchaged deadlines?