BN66 - Time to fight back: Continued

[AlbionRovers]

I'm keeping it simple, personal choice.

Stuff the CTD.
Keep the offset.
I think we'll win.

Like I said, personal choice.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Have I got this correct?

If the Interest rate continues to fall can we expect the HMRC rate to fall as well?

Yes, this is correct. The interest if you cash in a CTD is only 1-2% and likely to get worse, so if we win you would have been far better off having kept your offset mortgage.

HMRC's rate should fall but probably not as far or fast as the base rate.

The only reason I opted for a CTD is that I don't have a big enough mortgage to offset the liability, and savings (net of tax) can't keep pace with what HMRC charge. I did consider other investments but in the current climate...

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Response from Jane Kennedy to Chartered Institute of Taxation

I'm afraid this will make you spit.

http://www.tax.org.uk/attach.pl/7249...nedy080708.pdf

Last year HMRC's disclosure regime revealed that the latest version of the scheme was being used on an unprecendented scale.

Clause 55 therefore is a provision that clarifies this situation and enables taxpayers to avoid lengthy litigation

So Jane, you only found out about the scale of this in 2007? What about the fact that I, like hundreds of others, have been under investigation for 5 years? Did HMRC forget to mention this to you?

Maybe if you had closed it down 5 years ago we could have avoided a lengthy waste of time (and 5 years interest)!!!

[BrilloPad]

I'm afraid this will make you spit.

http://www.tax.org.uk/attach.pl/7249...nedy080708.pdf

Last year HMRC's disclosure regime revealed that the latest version of the scheme was being used on an unprecendented scale.

Clause 55 therefore is a provision that clarifies this situation and enables taxpayers to avoid lengthy litigation

So Jane, you only found out about the scale of this in 2007? What about the fact that I, like hundreds of others, have been under investigation for 5 years? Did HMRC forget to mention this to you?

Maybe if you had closed it down 5 years ago we could have avoided a lengthy waste of time (and 5 years interest)!!!

I wish we knew who was the barrister for the JR - I could email them this direct.

Maybe we will find out when we get a date for the JR....

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I wish we knew who was the barrister for the JR - I could email them this direct.

Maybe we will find out when we get a date for the JR....

I am tempted to write to the Treasury and ask them for the following data, bearing in mind that HMRC only "found out" about the scale of it in 2007.

1. Total number of self-assessments under investigation at the end of:
   2003
   2004
   2005
   2006
   2007
2. Number of (Suo Motu) scheme members HMRC reached a settlement with and dates of the settlement.
3. Number of new scheme users discovered in 2007 through HMRC's disclosure regime.

I think this would reveal the truth about how long HMRC have really been aware of the scale of the "abuse" and did nothing about it.

PS. of course MP (and our barrister) already have most of this data

[drum17]

Hi,

I've been lurking for quite a while but decided to join the party.

I was in the MP scheme for 4 years and have some money in reserve but not nearly enough to pay the bill I expect to get, (haven't received a CN yet btw).

I did have the money in a offset account but due to an impending divorce, (not due to this I might add), I moved it to a non-joint account recently.

A friend who is a tax accountant suggested I get a CTD in order to make it clear to her solicitor that the money is reserved for a possible tax bill, but I'm not sure quite how this will be viewed. Will be discussing further with my solicitor but wondered if anyone was in a similar position ?

The other issue I have is that if we lost I would have had to use equity in the house to pay the full bill but we're likely to have settled the divorce by next spring and as Mrs Drum and the Tambourines will no doubt get the house anyway, I don't think this will be an option.

Still - if I have nothing left, I guess HMRC will have sing for it if we lose.

Thanks for all your efforts so far on this and the previous thread, I've learnt a great deal and do have a fair amount of optimism in a positive outcome.

One last thing, a colleague of mine also in the scheme, spoke to HMRC recently and was told that there would be a further letter soon regarding the JR and it was unlikely that further CNs would be sent at the moment.
Apologies if this info has already been given but I don't remember reading it.

cheers

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Key Argument

Sorry to labour this point but I think the timelines could be one of the main chinks in HMRC's case.

If the main justification for making the legislation retrospective was that it's "unprecedented scale" was only "revealed" by the "disclosure regime" in 2007, and that it "enables taxpayers to avoid lengthy litigation", then this argument is fundamentally flawed.

HMRC have known about the growing use of the scheme since 2003. They have had hundreds of returns under investigation for 5 years. They had no trouble spotting DTA claims prior to the disclosure regime because very few people escaped their net. My guess is that they must have had at least 1000 people under enquiry by 2007. How many extra users could they have possibly discovered through the disclosure regime? This is blatantly just a smokescreen to cover up for their failure to take action sooner.

It was easy for Jane Kennedy to make these unsubstantiated claims to the Committee and the institute of taxation but HMRC won't be able to do this in court (without lying) because the facts simply don't support this.

What other possible justification is there for making it retrospective when they could have stopped it 5 years ago?

PS. is it worth writing to the CIOT and pointing out how they have been misled by Jane Kennedy?

[WhatEver]

[QUOTE=DonkeyRhubarb;670605]I'm afraid this will make you spit.

http://www.tax.org.uk/attach.pl/7249...nedy080708.pdf

Last year HMRC's disclosure regime revealed that the latest version of the scheme was being used on an unprecendented scale.

Clause 55 therefore is a provision that clarifies this situation and enables taxpayers to avoid lengthy and fruitless litigation

It's late but am i missing something here, the quote from the link misses the word "fruitless". So now corrected, this implies they're admitting they'd have lost the court case - yes??

[SantaClaus]

I am tempted to write to the Treasury and ask them for the following data, bearing in mind that HMRC only "found out" about the scale of it in 2007.

1. Total number of self-assessments under investigation at the end of:
   2003
   2004
   2005
   2006
   2007
2. Number of (Suo Motu) scheme members HMRC reached a settlement with and dates of the settlement.
3. Number of new scheme users discovered in 2007 through HMRC's disclosure regime.

I think this would reveal the truth about how long HMRC have really been aware of the scale of the "abuse" and did nothing about it.

PS. of course MP (and our barrister) already have most of this data

I guess you'd be able to ask for this under the freedom of information act. Worth mentioning it if writing.

[BrilloPad]

I am tempted to write to the Treasury and ask them for the following data, bearing in mind that HMRC only "found out" about the scale of it in 2007.

1. Total number of self-assessments under investigation at the end of:
   2003
   2004
   2005
   2006
   2007
2. Number of (Suo Motu) scheme members HMRC reached a settlement with and dates of the settlement.
3. Number of new scheme users discovered in 2007 through HMRC's disclosure regime.

I think this would reveal the truth about how long HMRC have really been aware of the scale of the "abuse" and did nothing about it.

PS. of course MP (and our barrister) already have most of this data

Date of Suo Motu settlement was FEb/Mar 2003