No To Retro Tax - Ongoing battle against S58 FA2008

[Fireship]

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

Couldn't agree more!

[smalldog]

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

Agree and this maybe their only bit of light relief in this mess. I'd rather not give them any relief personally

[stonehenge]

Things could get a whole lot worse for HMRC if all 2,000 users in the scheme catch on to TAA.

[deckster]

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.

Going back to this, I (and many others, it seems) agree wholeheartedly.

What are our timescales here? I'm mindful that we have said that we want to get our FTT proceedings under way before the Huitson decision comes out, which could be pretty soon as I understand it. Clearly we don't want to rush and be underprepared, but equally time is of the essence!

[BrilloPad]

I'm sure if there was anything else to combat Georgio, they would have brought it to the meeting.

Its good we are doing well but one can never be sure. Retrospection caught everyone out.

IMO that's a reason to get moving with FTTT - a pity Montpelier never got that far in 2007!

[Britspud]

Things could get a whole lot worse for HMRC if all 2,000 users in the scheme catch on to TAA.

It must be our duty to make sure everyone knows! I'm sure the other scheme providers and groups that exist will be keeping an eye on the FTT judgements...

[helen7]

Things could get a whole lot worse for HMRC if all 2,000 users in the scheme catch on to TAA.

Things will get a whole lot worse for HMRC if a number of other tax scheme's also quite rightly point out that the responsibility for the tax lays with the employment agent, not the employee.

There could well be a whole lot more than 2,000 applications to the FTT.

HMRC, I think its time we started negotiating a fair settlement. In my view, that being that income dating before the retrospective law change in 2008 is judged on the law as it stood at the time.

[Britspud]

Things will get a whole lot worse for HMRC if a number of other tax scheme's also quite rightly point out that the responsibility for the tax lays with the employment agent, not the employee.

There could well be a whole lot more than 2,000 applications to the FTT.

HMRC, I think its time we started negotiating a fair settlement. In my view, that being that income dating before the retrospective law change in 2008 is judged on the law as it stood at the time.

I don't think many people will be interested in a settlement unless it was a very low percentage. Say the same percentage as we've been advised of the chances of success at tribunal. But even then, people who might owe 300k might not be able to afford 50% or even 25% of that! In which case, they can't settle and will need to roll the dice.

[elpinar]

you would think they would LOVE that we want to be self employed ...

as employees we would earn less and they would get 18% NICs from our 'employer' (the bit they think this is all a ruse to didible from them

as ltd /self employed - we offer a servce that attracts VAT of a bigger amount

so ..... what would you prefer ?

18% of say 100k or 20% of 150k ....

in fact is there anything in that ..... if we are paye as they state on the APNS .... can we please have the 20% vat that they took on top of that given back to us - as if we were PAYE VAT was not due ..... so hand it back as its part of our salary.

If they give back the 20% they skimmed off all our salaries that would go someway to pay some bills

[Britspud]

you would think they would LOVE that we want to be self employed ...

as employees we would earn less and they would get 18% NICs from our 'employer' (the bit they think this is all a ruse to didible from them

as ltd /self employed - we offer a servce that attracts VAT of a bigger amount

so ..... what would you prefer ?

18% of say 100k or 20% of 150k ....

in fact is there anything in that ..... if we are paye as they state on the APNS .... can we please have the 20% vat that they took on top of that given back to us - as if we were PAYE VAT was not due ..... so hand it back as its part of our salary. They get more, you get less. But they don't care about the latter.

If they give back the 20% they skimmed off all our salaries that would go someway to pay some bills

They still get the VAT though on top of your NI...because the agency charges VAT on your fees plus their markup. So with an agency in between they do slightly more VAT and get employees and employers NI.