No To Retro Tax - Ongoing battle against S58 FA2008

[DonkeyRhubarb]

More than half of those who asked for a review thought the process was biased with a solid 38% saying that they were positively disadvantaged.

I can guarantee they would be biased in our case and we would be disadvantaged.

In light of the meeting we had with HMRC, CCW have now advised against requesting reviews. Their recommendations is for us to proceed straight to the FTT.

[MishiMoo]

If only....

Thinking back to last September and this: Montpelier CEO cleared of tax dodging after 'humiliating' HMRC climb down - Professional Adviser IFAonline

which concludes with:

"The only consequence has been the closure of a legitimate tax planning business and the loss of the jobs of the ordinary individuals employed by it," he said.

Gittins will now consider with his legal team what options are open to him to obtain recourse, Spragg said.


Wouldn't it be wonderful if that action to obtain such recourse was to start up / be running in parallel with our FTT? ...

.... damn! Dreaming again!

[BolshieBastard]

am with running man and vote No. I just don't like the i was that, then i found i was this but now im that again argument

hmrc can decide your IR35 status like this if they investigate you at any time. You consider yourself self employed, they pull tricks and say the evidence they have is you are a 'disguided employee.'

You provide further evidence to support your position of being self employed. If the case goes to a tribunal, they'll decide whether you are self employed or a disguided employee.

I really dont see an issue here about saying your status was understood to be A then changed to B. Why fight with one arm behind your back when your opponent is battering you with two arms and the kitchen sink?

[smalldog]

HMRC must be having a nice giggle at all this fear around our forums imagination on things like COP9's, Fraud etc. They have hit their target, dont give them the pleasure people its just scare tactics. MY attitude, bring it! Load of old tosh IMHO and its tantamount to blackmail. "If you do this, then we will do that", incredibly thin ice for anyone at HMRC to be suggesting our actions will unleash a countermeasure. That is not how a govt dept are supposed to operate, and a judge would Im sure agree with that.

IF there is a case to answer it should be answered, not used as a threat pending the other parties further actions. Simples

[DonkeyRhubarb]

HMRC must be having a nice giggle

I doubt they're laughing. It's all going a bit Pete Tong.

[banchini]

other options

Hi DR,

Send you a PM regarding other options open to individuals and to get your thoughts... appreciate if you could have a look at your earliest convenience.

To ALL,

I don't have another angle to attack HMRC, the post is personal and exploring options in terms of personal contingency, damage limitation...

Ta
Banchini

[BrilloPad]

I can guarantee they would be biased in our case and we would be disadvantaged.

In light of the meeting we had with HMRC, CCW have now advised against requesting reviews. Their recommendations is for us to proceed straight to the FTT.

Interesting. So no more negotiation?

Obviously please don't paste anything sensitive! I can wait for the newsletter if needed.

It all sounds good news.

[the great escape]

I'm sure if there was anything else to combat Georgio, they would have brought it to the meeting. I keep thinking of different angles they could have used but if they settled then for sure they weren't possible in the eyes of the law and thought strong-arming it is the only way out.

How many gezzers are we talking about here that fancy themselves as Britains's own HM Mafioso? There was an idea mooted many submissions ago about private investigators.

[Disgusted of Coventry]

HMRC must be having a nice giggle at all this fear around our forums imagination on things like COP9's, Fraud etc. They have hit their target, dont give them the pleasure people its just scare tactics. MY attitude, bring it! Load of old tosh IMHO and its tantamount to blackmail. "If you do this, then we will do that", incredibly thin ice for anyone at HMRC to be suggesting our actions will unleash a countermeasure. That is not how a govt dept are supposed to operate, and a judge would Im sure agree with that.

IF there is a case to answer it should be answered, not used as a threat pending the other parties further actions. Simples

Agreed! It's beginning to sound as plausible as had they threatened to lock everyone in Room 101 and force them to listen to The Birdie Song on auto-repeat. And the fraud suggestion is so farcical that it's difficult to imagine how the HMRC representative delivered the word with a straight face.

But it's my friend, and not me, who would have to deal with the reality, So it would be useful to know how HMRC might discharge its spite, and where this threat sits on the scale between 'scary' and 'a bit of a nuisance'.

Is it possible to know why, exactly, CCW advised against requesting reviews? If this decision was made on the basis of NTRT's meeting, then does it imply that they think HMRC's threats should be taken seriously? Or is there another reason?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Agreed! It's beginning to sound as plausible as had they threatened to lock everyone in Room 101 and force them to listen to The Birdie Song on auto-repeat. And the fraud suggestion is so farcical that it's difficult to imagine how the HMRC representative delivered the word with a straight face.

But it's my friend, and not me, who would have to deal with the reality, So it would be useful to know how HMRC might discharge its spite, and where this threat sits on the scale between 'scary' and 'a bit of a nuisance'.

Is it possible to know why, exactly, CCW advised against requesting reviews? If this decision was made on the basis of NTRT's meeting, then does it imply that they think HMRC's threats should be taken seriously? Or is there another reason?

Would you ask them for a review?