No To Retro Tax - Ongoing battle against S58 FA2008

[elpinar]

I was told that whilst they where looking at my letters the payment was suspended - but then a day later they wrote to me saying they didn't accept the pending judicial review as a reason and I still have to pay on Jun 8th as previously stated (i.e. I didn't get the extra 30 days which would have been helpful)

Currently scrabbling around for the cash as we speak - hoping to join the TAA but cant afford the initial payment until I get paid next!

If they wrote to you after may 10 (or whatever it would be ) i think you are allowed the 30 days as it is stated in writing ... for that i would ring them esepcially if it really matters to you !!!

[MishiMoo]

I'm in.....

First payment made, paperwork sent to CCW yesterday, standing order in place. No longer in any mood to compromise on this. Bring it on!!

Mishimoo

[DonkeyRhubarb]

327 members signed up to TAA
(Fighting fund - £294,300)

Please note

Any surplus cash at the end of the legal process will be re-distributed to people who signed up.

[jlg15333]

APN's and Time to Pay

Hi

I was wondering if anyone knows what will happen if you cant pay the APN, have to declare yourself bankrupt and lose your job as a consequence but later (however many years down the line) win at the FTT with TAA. Would HMRC be able to retrospectively un-bankrupt you and compensate you for losing your job?

I've signed up for TAA but am working away from home so can't gather my paperwork yet. Can I make the payment first and sort out the paperwork later?

JLG

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I was wondering if anyone knows what will happen if you cant pay the APN, have to declare yourself bankrupt and lose your job as a consequence but later (however many years down the line) win at the FTT with TAA. Would HMRC be able to retrospectively un-bankrupt you and compensate you for losing your job?

No, and therein lies the unfairness of it.

At the moment we don't know how far HMRC will go to enforce APNs. Even if they wanted to bankrupt someone, would a court agree to this? After all, although it's technically a debt, the underlying tax is still in dispute.

ps. someone asked an FOI about this
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...ncoming-552691

[ns1]

I was in the MP scheme but am not currently a member of NTRT.

Isn't it the case that it doesn't matter which appeal wins (Huitson, Shiner or NTRT) because everyone in the scheme will benefit from the precedent anyway?

£1200 is quite a lot of money to fork out if it's not necessary.

[smalldog]

No, and therein lies the unfairness of it.

At the moment we don't know how far HMRC will go to enforce APNs. Even if they wanted to bankrupt someone, would a court agree to this? After all, although it's technically a debt, the underlying tax is still in dispute.

ps. someone asked an FOI about this
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...ncoming-552691

That FOI reply is pretty much verbatim from what Gauke said during the APN debate. It obviously doesnt answer the question and once again the small minority of cases argument crops up. Totally missing the point of course that HMRC are selective in the cases they take to court depending on their confidence level of winning. So not surprising is it that they only lose a small minority of cases! give me strength.......

They will not answer the bankruptcy as they want to keep it as a big stick, ala a nuclear deterent. However, personally I really cant see a court bankrupting someone over non-payment of an APN. What they do say is they will seek bankruptcy if assets are concealed or passed on. Thats a very different situation as the implication is you have the ability to pay, you have just purposely avoided it, therefore bankruptcy proceedings would recover those assets to pay off the debt.

[screwthis]

No, and therein lies the unfairness of it.

At the moment we don't know how far HMRC will go to enforce APNs. Even if they wanted to bankrupt someone, would a court agree to this? After all, although it's technically a debt, the underlying tax is still in dispute.

ps. someone asked an FOI about this
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...ncoming-552691

They claim the APN is designed to remove the cash flow advantage (whatever the hell that is seeing that there is interest running??) from tax avoidance.
If you can demonstrate you have no cash then what does it matter whether the no cash sits with you or with them?
It would be in their interests to wait until the debt is beyond dispute to then clean you out when you have had some time to increase your assets.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Over £300,000

335 members signed up to TAA
(Fighting fund - £301,500)

Please note

Any surplus cash at the end of the legal process will be re-distributed to people who signed up.

[lucozade]

I was in the MP scheme but am not currently a member of NTRT.

Isn't it the case that it doesn't matter which appeal wins (Huitson, Shiner or NTRT) because everyone in the scheme will benefit from the precedent anyway?

£1200 is quite a lot of money to fork out if it's not necessary.

So you propose that everybody else pays the legal fees which you want to benefit from?

Paying into NTRT is absolutely necessary. If all of us thought like that we'd be screwed by now.

Join in and start contributing. Together we are stronger.

£1200 is a drop in the ocean compared to most people's six figure liabilities.