BN66 - Time to fight back: Continued

[ContractIn]

You are not alone - I've been in the scheme since 2004 and haven't received any closure notices yet either. Apparently it depends on how "efficient" your local tax office is (and whether they have decided to wait for the outcome of the JR).

The only thing I am concerned about is whether they have been lost in the post and I am running out of time to submit the appeal, to be honest.

ditto - not received a dicky. My concern too is whether CN has been lost in transit, what our position is for appeal?

[MrX]

I thought it about time I reveal myself as a lurker.

I was in the MP scheme from 2004 to Jul-2008. I am amazed at how it is lawful to retropectively change the law. The implications from this are huge and I cannot see how it is possible that HMRC will get away with it.

I am assuming that MP are fighting HMRC on both the retrospective changes and the actual validity of the scheme.

This thread has been a great source of comfort to me during this whole process. There is safety in numbers and I am certainly going to let MP do their job.

A BIG thank-you to all who post here.

[AlbionRovers]

If we haven't received anything yet, and we know that the CNs are sent out via poxy 2nd class on a Friday, maybe lost thereafter, how can HMRC prove that they left their building in the first place?

Doesn't really worry me to be honest.

[Tynos]

awaiting CNs

Although I recieved a letter a couple of months ago from HMRC warning me to pay on account to prevent interest, and closure notice will be issued I'm yet to recieve a single one for the years in the scheme.

Should I be concerned, should I contact HMRC ?

There are 4 of us at my current client awaiting CNs.
We were all threatened by HMRC with them over the summer.
To date just one of us has had a CN (Appealed), and only for 1 of his 3 years.

The rest of us are just sitting tight and awaiting the JR.

[SantaClaus]

Anyone received a closure notice for a tax year that wasn't under investigation? I have

HMRC (hello ) have been very naughty and forgot that there is a time limit to investigating a tax year after the S/A has been filed.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I thought it about time I reveal myself as a lurker.

I was in the MP scheme from 2004 to Jul-2008. I am amazed at how it is lawful to retropectively change the law. The implications from this are huge and I cannot see how it is possible that HMRC will get away with it.

I am assuming that MP are fighting HMRC on both the retrospective changes and the actual validity of the scheme.

This thread has been a great source of comfort to me during this whole process. There is safety in numbers and I am certainly going to let MP do their job.

A BIG thank-you to all who post here.

Welcome to the discussion.

Retrospective law in civil matters is very rare but not totally unprecedented.

To me, the key is whether it can be justified in this case. Public interest is one defence, and there is no doubt that the scheme is highly aggressive (and arguably artificial), so there is an argument for protecting tax revenues.

However, using retrospection as a bandaid to cover up for incompetence is going to be much harder to justify. If they had acted promptly to close the loophole, instead of dithering about, then there would have been no need for retrospection.

Unfortunately for HMRC, they can't keep up the pretence that they were unaware of the scheme because hundreds of us have been under enquiry for years, and we've got thousands of letters to prove the point.

[smalldog]

just out of curiosity, do HMRC absolutely have to enforce the law now or can they do a u turn? Just wondering if the amount of appeals etc could make them realise this isnt going to be a fastbuck and might make them reconsider their position and enforcement. It does seem funny how so many people dont have appeared to have received their CN's since the initial wave were sent out. Wonder if this is purely cos their admin is so terrible or they are considering their position in conjunction with the treasury....

[smalldog]

Welcome to the discussion.

Retrospective law in civil matters is very rare but not totally unprecedented.

To me, the key is whether it can be justified in this case. Public interest is one defence, and there is no doubt that the scheme is highly aggressive (and arguably artificial), so there is an argument for protecting tax revenues.

However, using retrospection as a bandaid to cover up for incompetence is going to be much harder to justify. If they had acted promptly to close the loophole, instead of dithering about, then there would have been no need for retrospection.

Unfortunately for HMRC, they can't keep up the pretence that they were unaware of the scheme because hundreds of us have been under enquiry for years, and we've got thousands of letters to prove the point.

DR, in bold....but where does it end then? You could say you must protect revenues by increasing the upper tax threshold to 100% and then retrospectively setting the starting band to £1 earnt with no personal tax allowance. That would also be protecting revenues and I think that is the key point.

[Ratican]

YOUR Member of Parliament

Hi everybody - I know I keep saying this... but please do get in touch with your MP or MSP and MEP if you haven't done so already.

It will help us.

Ask them to get detailed answers to questions we have raised here not only on the human rights issues surrounding clause 55 - but on other things like the possibility Jane Kennedy knowingly or unknowingly misled (lied to?) the Finance Committee.

It only takes a minute and you can do it online here:
http://www.writetothem.com/

[BrilloPad]

I thought it about time I reveal myself as a lurker.

I was in the MP scheme from 2004 to Jul-2008. I am amazed at how it is lawful to retropectively change the law. The implications from this are huge and I cannot see how it is possible that HMRC will get away with it.

I am assuming that MP are fighting HMRC on both the retrospective changes and the actual validity of the scheme.

This thread has been a great source of comfort to me during this whole process. There is safety in numbers and I am certainly going to let MP do their job.

A BIG thank-you to all who post here.

And a BIG thank-you to you for de-lurking. Any more lurkers wishing to say hello would be much appreciated.

BP