BN66 - Time to fight back: Continued

[ASB]

Someone in this thread said that over 100 closure notices have been received and that MP were appealing. I don't know if enough time has passed yet, but does anyone know what (if any) response there's been to the appeals?

It would be interesting to know as I understood that HMRC would be rejecting appeals against these notices.

What do you mean by rejecting appeals?

They can say we reject it because out of time, or it's technically invalid because it has been improperly filed. They can't reject it because they don't like it. It's a part of the process of moving any disupute to determination infrom of the generals or specials.

HMRC simply do not have the power to make a contested determination. There is a process, they are part of it - but not all of it.

[Oakleyacc]

Rejecting appeals

I can promise you that I don't know anything ! There is a form of closure notice which HMRC can issue (according to their website and certain people who have received them) which enable the HMRC to take such action necessary to protect them against possible loss of tax revenue.

I believe they are called Jeopardy Assessments and they do allow them to reject appeals if they believe that there is real danger in losing the money.
I didn't know whether the HMRC were continuing to use these "emergency" measures to try and obtain funds.

So that's why I'm interested to know what (if any) reaction HMRC have had to the appeals which MP have already lodged. Presumably there's a time limit for them to reply to the appeal.

Sorry for causing alarm !

[BrilloPad]

I dont give a sh*t. I willl pay them nothing until the JR is over and has agreed that HMRC's actions do not violate the Human Rights Act 1998

[ASB]

I believe they are called Jeopardy Assessments and they do allow them to reject appeals if they believe that there is real danger in losing the money.

Fair enough. There was some discussion on HMRC using Jeopardy Assessments (I think they might even have issued some). My understanding (which could be wrong) is that this does give them some ability to protect against flight etc. However it does not allow them to bypass (ignore) the overall process of allowing a taxpayer the right of appeal through the comissioners (and ultimately beyond if the taxpayer feels so inclined).

I'd point out though that I'm not affected by this, merely an interested bystander.

[WhatEver]

Just my view....

I was explaining this situation to colleague who used to be a contracter (got out with the advent of IR35). In explaining the whole story from the start I realised we will win this, no question, hmrc are tiptoeing on very thin ice, they're going for broke.

Hmrc claim for many years that they'll take action and even threaten with penalties (which they could never do due to complete disclosure). Then when they finally realise they dare not go to court as they would lose they decide to legislate. This is fair enough, but they make the mistake of making this retrospective more as a tantrum from a bully whose been beaten rather than for any legal reason. They realise that had they gone to court and lost they could never implement the retrospective clause, so they abandon the court challenges and go for broke.

That's how I see this, hmrc taking a final desperate throw of the dice in some misconceived hope their number will come up. They can do this because it's free, so why not have one last gamble, nothing to lose, the tax payer picks up the cheque.

Just thought I'd share my views. Also want to say a big thx to NW and MP for sterling work, I know some of you have differing opinions but ultimately they're sticking with it through to the end.

[helen7]

eh? can anyone translate this from troll-speak into English?

as said several times - there are NO penalties only interest.

On the letter with my closure notice it stated that if I do not pay within 30 days they will add a further 5%

If I do not pay after 6 months another 5% will be added.

In my eyes, that is a penalty.

[BrilloPad]

On the letter with my closure notice it stated that if I do not pay within 30 days they will add a further 5%

If I do not pay after 6 months another 5% will be added.

In my eyes, that is a penalty.

I will pass to montp and get some feedback - though I think HMRC are pulling your plonker......

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I was explaining this situation to colleague who used to be a contracter (got out with the advent of IR35). In explaining the whole story from the start I realised we will win this, no question, hmrc are tiptoeing on very thin ice, they're going for broke.

Hmrc claim for many years that they'll take action and even threaten with penalties (which they could never do due to complete disclosure). Then when they finally realise they dare not go to court as they would lose they decide to legislate. This is fair enough, but they make the mistake of making this retrospective more as a tantrum from a bully whose been beaten rather than for any legal reason. They realise that had they gone to court and lost they could never implement the retrospective clause, so they abandon the court challenges and go for broke.

That's how I see this, hmrc taking a final desperate throw of the dice in some misconceived hope their number will come up. They can do this because it's free, so why not have one last gamble, nothing to lose, the tax payer picks up the cheque.

Just thought I'd share my views. Also want to say a big thx to NW and MP for sterling work, I know some of you have differing opinions but ultimately they're sticking with it through to the end.

I think it's also a sign of a government which has been in power too long and has become arrogant and complacent. This wasn't the only serious error in this year's budget.

[BrilloPad]

Also want to say a big thx to NW and MP for sterling work

WHS

[SantaClaus]

AS MP put it...why give in when the fun is just beginning?

I like that quote! Let's show HMRC what a corrupt bunch of crooks they and their New Liebour taskmasters really are