BN66 - Time to fight back: Continued

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I moved house and HMRC are still sending post to my old house. I have told them 3 times (once to Mr B on the phone, once to an underling in writing and once to the underling on the phone) that I have moved but they still insist on sending stuff there. Luckily my brother lives there and it's about 500 metres away so I'm not in such a bad position.

I'd be careful about this. I received my closure notices 7 days after they were posted (by second class mail...)

If I don't receive them soon, I'm tempted to send a letter recorded delivery so at least it's on record that I wish to appeal. It is ludicrous that they are sending something as urgent as this by 2nd class post.

[TheGadgetMan]

If I don't receive them soon, I'm tempted to send a letter recorded delivery so at least it's on record that I wish to appeal. It is ludicrous that they are sending something as urgent as this by 2nd class post.

I totally agree...the question is...suppose a closure notice was sent out and it was genuinely lost in the post...and as a result an appeal wasn't filed in time...on whom would the onus of proof be on?

would it be for HMRC to prove that they sent the CN in the first place?...bearing in mind that they are sending these CNs out 2nd class UNREGISTERED post, surely the burden of proof would be on them...

when I send my SA form in every year, I ALWAYS send it Special Delivery...if it were to get lost then the first question HMRC would ask is, 'Prove you sent it'...with Special Delivery, I can do this.

another point...call me naive, but Ive always put HMRCs cock-ups and errors down to their general ineptitude...my experience of dealing with HMRC staff is that they are people of very average ability and intelligence...people who simply would not survive in the cut and thrust world of running a business...people who need to work in an environment where they simply fill forms and push paper because they arent capable of much more...an environment that isn't too demanding on their staff....where mistakes can be made and papered over with a band-aid...an environment where, if you make a mistake, the worst that can happen is that you'll get moved to another department...

BP, you keep alluding to the dirty tricks conjured up in your ex-wifes department at HMRC...this implies cunning, deceit and a total lack of scruples...and a high level of intelligence...all in the name of extracting more and more tax out of people...can you tell us exactly how dirty HMRC play it some time...?...can their behaviour ever be viewed as legally criminal?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Whistle blower

Anyone seen this?

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...companies.html

He probably doesn't realise that his email address is visible which has the same domain as his personal website that contains his full name, address and mobile. Oops!

[Toocan]

I have had to stop using MP as the 'payroll company' that my client uses (Hays) will not deal with MP. This is because I am not PAYE anywhere. I understand that all the large payroll companies have the policy mentioned above. I have spoken to quite a few agents who have been proposing contracts and they have all come back (sooner or later) with the same response.

It turns out there is a very good reason for this - I expect all of these companies (Hays et al) will be praying that MTM win the JR and that the government accept that decision.

[Toocan]

Anyone seen this?

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...companies.html

He probably doesn't realise that his email address is visible which has the same domain as his personal website that contains his full name, address and mobile. Oops!

It seems like a daft thing to do, to me. Let's face it - HMRC are more likely to now investigate him!

I checked out the EBT scheme's but didn't go for them because I didn't like the setup. Having said that, I believe they are legal providing the agent does what they claim to do.

D Hartnett (sp?) made a speach a few years back about tax avoidance schemes where events were claimed to have happened but didn't. Had the persian rugs (or whatever) been bought then the scheme would have worked, but the wern't so they didn't!

Thanks Dave, any other advice on making an avoidance scheme work?

[SantaClaus]

Anyone seen this?

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...companies.html

He probably doesn't realise that his email address is visible which has the same domain as his personal website that contains his full name, address and mobile. Oops!

What is Sisus post actually about? Is he trying to be a good (albeit naive!) citizen by shopping tax avoidance schemes that would have been notified to HMRC anyway? Or is he a member of 10 different tax schemes?

I'm confused!

[BrilloPad]

BP, you keep alluding to the dirty tricks conjured up in your ex-wifes department at HMRC...this implies cunning, deceit and a total lack of scruples...and a high level of intelligence...all in the name of extracting more and more tax out of people...can you tell us exactly how dirty HMRC play it some time...?...can their behaviour ever be viewed as legally criminal?

It is not illegal - and no proof. They stick together!

Among the offences :-
1. If letter received and missing file - bin the letter.
2. looking up celebrity earnings.
3. deliberately winding up punters - then making a joke out of it.

I think a few on this thread have seen some of the dirty tricks - like telling montp they would be informed when IOM accounts wanted - then sending the letters out so montp could not forewarn.

But as I also said, they often make mistakes that are in the punters favour. My ex set loads of corp tax owing to zero - they only found when 1 (stupid) punter complained!!

However I would appeal for sanity - I still think we are 80% to win.

[BrilloPad]

What is Sisus post actually about? Is he trying to be a good (albeit naive!) citizen by shopping tax avoidance schemes that would have been notified to HMRC anyway? Or is he a member of 10 different tax schemes?

I'm confused!

So is sisus! Sounds like the pressure of investigation has got to him. Hats off to HMRC. I hope everyone on this thread is holding up as well as can be expected?

[BrilloPad]

It seems like a daft thing to do, to me. Let's face it - HMRC are more likely to now investigate him!

But some people dont care! When the police spoke to some of us on this thread regarding comments made - my name was already known.

I think we will win - and I am happy to be made a test case.

[BrilloPad]

ooops - I nearly forgot - number of closure notices well over 50 but under 100 now. Sorry - I am a bit slow this morning.