No To Retro Tax - Ongoing battle against S58 FA2008

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I suspect that if HMRC wish to follow through on their threat, then each member who makes the application will get a COP 9.

That then allows HMRC considerable freedom to request all sorts of things from bank accounts, through court orders to credit card bills to which internet sites you pay for. In other words a full drains up investigation.

That is double edged to a degree because it takes considerable HMRC resource.

You will also have your files marked as such and any year not presently under enquiry but in time will be opened and all tax returns submitted from now also enquired into.

HMRC may threaten to write to third parties about you (employer, agent, mortgage company, credit scoring agency, etc) asking for information (and by implication casting aspersions).

They may contact your accountant/agent. Check your VAT compliance. Check your NIC records. Look at your benefit claims.

Make no mistake that HMRC's reach is long and all they need is an allegation of fraud. Hopefully CCW will either engage a law firm as required or have the internal resources to resist such invidious excursion into your life.

So when DR mentions unleashing dogs, these bite and bark.

Be prepared.

This is why the preferred approach is to appeal directly to the FTT, not ask HMRC for reviews as stated in the last newsletter.

I've made this comment before. Some sections of HMRC are like the Police used to be in the 1970s and 80s.

Look what they put the CEO of Montpelier through last year.

[bananarepublic]

I suspect that if HMRC wish to follow through on their threat, then each member who makes the application will get a COP 9.

That then allows HMRC considerable freedom to request all sorts of things from bank accounts, through court orders to credit card bills to which internet sites you pay for. In other words a full drains up investigation.

That is double edged to a degree because it takes considerable HMRC resource.

You will also have your files marked as such and any year not presently under enquiry but in time will be opened and all tax returns submitted from now also enquired into.

HMRC may threaten to write to third parties about you (employer, agent, mortgage company, credit scoring agency, etc) asking for information (and by implication casting aspersions).

They may contact your accountant/agent. Check your VAT compliance. Check your NIC records. Look at your benefit claims.

Make no mistake that HMRC's reach is long and all they need is an allegation of fraud. Hopefully CCW will either engage a law firm as required or have the internal resources to resist such invidious excursion into your life.

So when DR mentions unleashing dogs, these bite and bark.

Be prepared.

On what grounds could they issue a COP9? Personally I was under a COP8 for 5 years before they issued closure notices. Surely there would have to be some discovery?

The only thing that has been discovered is that HMRC screwed up their original investigation.

Surely a COP9 would appear vexatious? Aren't there safeguards?

... HMRC only need an allegation of fraud to launch COP9 which they don't have to disclose. How convenient!

[Morlock]

I've made this comment before. Some sections of HMRC are like the Police used to be in the 1970s and 80s.

...you mean a highly-successful white-reggae rock band?

[Resolute B]

...you mean a highly-successful white-reggae rock band?

No, good old Customs and Excise, they brought the culture of "you're guilty of something you b@rsteds and we'll find out what it is" to HMRC when they merged with the old IR.

[orientalist]

...you mean a highly-successful white-reggae rock band?

With a sting?

[Morlock]

With a sting?

I'm glad somebody got the joke.
Have a good weekend, all.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

West Midlands Serious Crime Squad: Police unit to blame for `dozens more injustices' - News - The Independent

"So far 30 convictions have been quashed by the Court of Appeal because of evidence that the squad fabricated evidence, tortured suspects and wrote false confessions."

OK, HMRC aren't this bad but they definitely play fast and loose.

[Ninja]

Minutes

Nah, we're not interested in arguing the toss over minutes. We're done talking to them.

Remember these people are civil servants, so I would recommend that you formally state in writing that the minutes are not a true & accurate account of the meeting. Just so that it's on the record.

[Ninja]

I suggest that we all write to <mod snip> HMRC who knows that we have no case to answer asking why this is not being dropped immediately. Of course recorded delivery and of course circulated to Lin Homer and her direct reports.

If he is serious about taking his nonsensical claim of deliberate and systematic fraud any further against 3000 IT consultants I suggest he get on with it. As I have mentioned in a previous post I have already taken advice on this far-fetched and ridiculous concept and it will never see the light of day in a courtroom

Alternatively a Freedom of Information Request asking what grounds <mod snip> HMRC has to continue action against us given that they have had on the record meetings with us where they have admitted that they have no case against us.

In addition they have already accepted that they have no case against us by their settlement with 'George'.

<mod snip> HMRC knows that he is behaving both illegally and immorally towards us now.

I encourage everyone who mentions his name now to also add HMRC so that his mendacity and cowardice comes up loud and clear in Google if anyone searches on his name. It's easy just too easy to hide behind your desk.MOD EDIT: Do that and you be reading this forum as a Guest because I will have banned you.

Just remember these guys would be merciless in taking us for everything. They'd have no scruples about driving us into bankruptcy regardless of the fact that we make a significant contribution to the UK economy.

Calm down, Hendrik. Remember, gentlemen of your age mustn't get too excited

[ready_to_leave]

The not dealing with this issue globally is obviously so a coordinated response can be used on one side and force the other to deal with it as individuals. This enables a variety of tactics to be used to see which cause people to back down. E.g notices of fraud investigations, dismissal as lack of public domain info on the George settlement etc.

Remember these people are civil servants, so I would recommend that you formally state in writing that the minutes are not a true & accurate account of the meeting. Just so that it's on the record.