BN66 - Time to fight back: Continued

[kiwinlondon]

I particularly like my Closure Notice. One of the year's calculations is crossed out and written in pencil.

Hmmm, maybe I can cross it out again and fill in my own figures.

I didnt get a closure notice... just a nice letter saying i had nothing to do while the revenue took things up with MP in regards to my previous self assesment forms...anyone else get letters like this? I sent in on to MP for action.

[SantaClaus]

I didnt get a closure notice... just a nice letter saying i had nothing to do while the revenue took things up with MP in regards to my previous self assesment forms...anyone else get letters like this? I sent in on to MP for action.

Didnt get one like that. Methinks Mr YouKnowWho is showing favouritism to you

[BrilloPad]

I didnt get a closure notice... just a nice letter saying i had nothing to do while the revenue took things up with MP in regards to my previous self assesment forms...anyone else get letters like this? I sent in on to MP for action.

Apparently they have received a few like this - also in a few cases they have a mixture of CN/queries! All are being dealt with.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Retrospective avoidance or evasion?

Presumably if someone was to continue to use the DTA mechanism after April 2008, they could face a criminal prosecution for tax evasion?

However, the law has been backdated to 1987, so surely we must also be (retrospectively) guilty of tax evasion? It can't be avoidance because the loophole never existed.

This may seem like an obscure legal argument but you can't have it both ways. Either we broke the law (criminal offence) or we didn't.

I don't see how you could treat someone continuing to use the arrangement now differently than someone who used it a few years ago when the law being applied is identical.

Now, of course, HMRC wouldn't want it to be treated as a criminal matter because in that case retrospection would be in clear breach of human rights.

By keeping it as a civil tax matter, they have more chance of getting away with it.

[Emigre]

Didnt get one like that. Methinks Mr YouKnowWho is showing favouritism to you

Interesting. Is allowed to show favouritism? More appropriately is he allowed to treat some worse than others? Isn't that called discrimination? He has a list of all participants on the scheme and then chooses to treat some one way and some another..

[BrilloPad]

Interesting. Is allowed to show favouritism? More appropriately is he allowed to treat some worse than others? Isn't that called discrimination? He has a list of all participants on the scheme and then chooses to treat some one way and some another..

As far as picking test cases goes I think they are.

Remember that this case relies on co-operation betweeh head office and local offices. There is bound to be some miscommunication.

I still hope to be chosen as test case for the JR......

[BrilloPad]

Presumably if someone was to continue to use the DTA mechanism after April 2008, they could face a criminal prosecution for tax evasion?

However, the law has been backdated to 1987, so surely we must also be (retrospectively) guilty of tax evasion? It can't be avoidance because the loophole never existed.

This may seem like an obscure legal argument but you can't have it both ways. Either we broke the law (criminal offence) or we didn't.

I don't see how you could treat someone continuing to use the arrangement now differently than someone who used it a few years ago when the law being applied is identical.

Now, of course, HMRC wouldn't want it to be treated as a criminal matter because in that case retrospection would be in clear breach of human rights.

By keeping it as a civil tax matter, they have more chance of getting away with it.

Very very interesting post.

Imagine the situation where we were charged with criminal offences and HMRC won! Need I spell the rest out?

On the other hand - criminal gives us a better chance of winning. And criminal gives the right to legal aid(which was why my friend opted for criminal in his case).

[SantaClaus]

Update to previous post:

Postman just arrived. Typical time of day (1 pm) for UK Plc!
Got copy of letter from HMRC to Montpelier agreeing to postpone tax and NIC with regards to the appeals.

[Emigre]

Presumably if someone was to continue to use the DTA mechanism after April 2008, they could face a criminal prosecution for tax evasion?

However, the law has been backdated to 1987, so surely we must also be (retrospectively) guilty of tax evasion? It can't be avoidance because the loophole never existed.

This may seem like an obscure legal argument but you can't have it both ways. Either we broke the law (criminal offence) or we didn't.

I don't see how you could treat someone continuing to use the arrangement now differently than someone who used it a few years ago when the law being applied is identical.

Now, of course, HMRC wouldn't want it to be treated as a criminal matter because in that case retrospection would be in clear breach of human rights.

By keeping it as a civil tax matter, they have more chance of getting away with it.

HMRC are not applying penalties on the CNs so are clearly admitting that the law arising from FA 2008 did not exist prior to BN66.

If you use the scheme now and state your reliance on it on your tax return HMRC can take you to the Commissioners and challenge your treatment of the income, with the taxpayer effectively challenging the new legislation. (Didn't happen prior to BN66 of course ). It is still not criminal and if the Commissioners found in favour of HMRC there may not even be any penalties since you have declared all your income and are only disagreeing with Hector as to how it should be treated.

[BrilloPad]

Update to previous post:

Postman just arrived. Typical time of day (1 pm) for UK Plc!
Got copy of letter from HMRC to Montpelier agreeing to postpone tax and NIC with regards to the appeals.

Was that from your local office? Do you think head office knows?

Will you reply in yellow?

Dont forget to forward to NW or TQ (as if you would!)