No To Retro Tax - Ongoing battle against S58 FA2008

[BarneyCool]

Good for you!

Yes, the MTM templates

Appointed agent is just the chap who did an SAR for me a couple of years ago

I take it that you will be getting a few Stella's down your neck tonight! 🍻

[elpinar]

I'll know the exact wording in about 2 hours

part timer !!!! lol

[the great escape]

The tribunal referred to previous case law (R (oao Weston) v Inland Revenue, R (oao Esterson) v HMRC and R (oao Wilkinson) v Inland Revenue), in which Moses J said:

“There is no arguable fairness in [HMRC] pursuing that duty merely because, for some reason, they have failed to pursue their obligations in relation to the other taxpayers. Nor could it possibly be contended that there was unfairness to the other taxpayers since they had the good fortune … to have escaped the tax. But the mere fact that two taxpayers in arguably the same situation have not in fact been charged tax does not raise a case of unfairness without more.”

The above is a quote from Patel v CRC 2011.

The concept of legitimate expectation, i.e. I know HMRC do XYZ so why didn't I get that treatment, is a hot topic at the moment and this case whilst important is not the final word.

The point of this post is to ask if any of you have letters from HMRC for a period prior to a COP8 or 9A enquiry notice that relate to EXACTLY the same scheme you have such notices for, but which agree a position.

For example, if you submitted am 03/04 tax return with the information on loans etc and have a letter agreeing the return, that would be helpful.

Note: no letter and agreement by implication is less helpful but if sufficient weight can be brought, may be useful.

This will be part of BIG GROUP in due course but you guys are front and centre at the moment and if there are any legs here, it will help you as well.

Thanks in advance.

Hector countered the DTA legitimate expectation IMHO by saying that the only expectation one should have is that 'your UK income is taxable, where ever it arises'. Even if they got in the Delorean and changed 'where ever' to 'how ever', it would not change the George result. So if one falls within the bounds of George, one should arrive at the same point. The only issue is that point was arrived at by rule based concession and not by challenge.

Now faced with an uruly mob much greater than 1, can HM forgo any rules of concession 'in the public interest' and elect instead to fight in the vain hope of arriving at a different point?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Now faced with an uruly mob much greater than 1, can HM forgo any rules of concession 'in the public interest' and elect instead to fight in the vain hope of arriving at a different point?

Hard to fight TAA without undermining policy.

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...g_examples.pdf

That's probably why they latched on to the fraud nonsense.

[the great escape]

Hard to fight TAA without undermining policy.

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...g_examples.pdf

That's probably why they latched on to the fraud nonsense.

I'd say with those examples, alignment with Sir George is a no brainer.

Where I'm living at the mo, this is all solved by the govt./revenue doing several things

a) granting certain professions certain tax statuses so that the advantage of SE is there without the spectre of being turned over for E / IR35 looming in the background. You pay less tax, you make more money - sure. But then you don't get the benefits of e.g. the public health service. You have to go private. Fair enough.
b) Agencies acquire special licenses to employ people then lend them out. Otherwise most companies won't look twice at you. Why? - tax risk. This as opposed to simply finding people work and throwing them to the client with diy employment status.

If I saw any of that in an election manifesto, I may have been inclined to postal vote. Sadly not. Smash and grab is all there is on offer.

[StellaFan]

The letters just say they are withdrawing each APN because it was issued in error, sorry for inconvenience and no further action needed.
Judging by the date, I'd say it's highly unlikely my letters of objection played any part in it.

[lucozade]

The letters just say they are withdrawing each APN because it was issued in error, sorry for inconvenience and no further action needed.
Judging by the date, I'd say it's highly unlikely my letters of objection played any part in it.

Did the APNs refer to "tax the partnership avoided" or "tax you avoided" ?

[webberg]

The letters just say they are withdrawing each APN because it was issued in error, sorry for inconvenience and no further action needed.
Judging by the date, I'd say it's highly unlikely my letters of objection played any part in it.

there appears to have been a few such instances.

I'm wondering what the common thread is.

[elpinar]

The letters just say they are withdrawing each APN because it was issued in error, sorry for inconvenience and no further action needed.
Judging by the date, I'd say it's highly unlikely my letters of objection played any part in it.

cant we all say thats sets a precedence as we are all in the same boat - so should they not be duty bound to withdraw all others on the same scheme etc

[elpinar]

there appears to have been a few such instances.

I'm wondering what the common thread is.

praps its like the usa/irish green card draw - and they put all our names in a hat and once a month pull out a winner. Then withdraw for no reason for thier own amusement to see us all get our hopes up