BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[Toocan]

Well I had! It was one of the advantages of having the trolls(Mal/Bradley/gooner) on here - they did provide some useful idea for what we might be up against.

In particular :-
http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...ore#post525055

That thread is from 2005 - is that when you joined?

I joined before that and there was no mention of Padmore.

HMRC didn't bother to mention it till BN66 either... go figure...

[DonkeyRhubarb]

thanks, thats right - I really do think its for payment on account, and yes they seem to have applied interest to that too ! I've now gone back the estimates NW and TQ gave and they were bang on, excluding that due for 2007-2008

It is described here (well sort of ):

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/salfmanual/SALF303.htm

Example: Adjustment to previous year and revision of relevant amount

3.42 A taxpayer's self assessment for 2010/11 is £3,000. Therefore the payments on account for 2011/12 are

31st January 2012 £1,500
31st July 2012 £1,500

These payments are made on time and in the correct amount, but after an enquiry into the 2010/11 return the liability for the year is revised upwards to £4,500. An amended self assessment is made on 1st November 2012.
Each payment on account for 2011/12 is reset to £2,250, an increase of £750. Interest will arise on each underpayment until paid. The interest charge runs from the original due dates (31st January and 31st July 2012) until the date of payment.

[BrilloPad]

Perhaps we should construct a full reply to the letter that AlbionRovers received from his/her MP and each of us send it to our MP’s. They will be debating the pre-budget report Monday onwards so there may be a chance.

We’d have to emphasis the hardship this measure will cause and the fact that this arrangement was entered to achieve certainty from IR35. As a similar poster noted the other day there is only a small saving of tax vs fee’s between an efficient Ltd Co and a BN66 scheme.

The risk is that they (the MP's) don’t support us, but if they don’t then they won’t anyway.

Would we have to check this action with Montpellier?

It could be tagged into the “Brown’s government doesn’t support small business” argument.

What’da ya all think?

I think the main angle of attack is retrospectively changing the law. It is the job of the courts to clarify - not government.

I wonder if any judges might support us as it undermines their authority?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Perhaps we should construct a full reply to the letter that AlbionRovers received from his/her MP and each of us send it to our MP’s. They will be debating the pre-budget report Monday onwards so there may be a chance.

We’d have to emphasis the hardship this measure will cause and the fact that this arrangement was entered to achieve certainty from IR35. As a similar poster noted the other day there is only a small saving of tax vs fee’s between an efficient Ltd Co and a BN66 scheme.

The risk is that they (the MP's) don’t support us, but if they don’t then they won’t anyway.

Would we have to check this action with Montpellier?

It could be tagged into the “Brown’s government doesn’t support small business” argument.

What’da ya all think?

Personally, I'm not persuaded that we'd get anywhere.

By the way, I am currently awaiting a follow-up reply from my MP who has forwarded the letter below to the new Financial Secretary to the Treasury and requested a response.

===================================
Dear Mr Taylor,

Ref: Retrospective Legislation - Clause 55(4), Finance Bill 2008

I previously contacted your colleague Andrew George about this matter but have recently moved into your constituency. It concerns a measure “Clause 55” enacted in the 2008 Finance Bill, which retrospectively ammends the foreign partnership rules for UK residents dating back to 1987.

Now that the Finance Bill has passed into law, HMRC have begun issuing closure notices for back tax and interest. Although the legislation was originally targeted at property developers, the vast majority of people caught by it are freelance workers like myself. My enquiries indicate that as many as 2000 such individuals may be affected.

I am in contact with a large group of people who are in the same predicament, and a substantial number are facing real financial hardship. Many could lose their homes and, for some, personal insolvency may be the only option. I have already heard reports of several marriages breaking down under the strain.

Our legal representatives have advised us to appeal against the HMRC closure notices. They have also just applied to the High Court for a Judicial Review on the grounds that retrospective legislation infringes our human rights. However, if their endeavours ultimately prove unsuccessful, the fallout and human cost of this could be devastating for many families.

I hope I can count on your support to oppose this retrospective legislation.

Yours sincerely,
===================================

[SantaClaus]

Just got a self assesment statement

Just got a self assesment statement with interest to pay and trying really hard to fathom it out.

Hope someone can help with these possibly stupid questions (I should really know the answers by now!):

1. Should any of the tax years not be suspended? I have 01/02 to 05/06 suspended, but 06/07 and 07/08 are not.

2. Should there be any interest payable at all?

I was hoping not to bother Natalie on Monday but may have to because I'm very confused.

Thanks in advance for any help!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Just got a self assesment statement with interest to pay and trying really hard to fathom it out.

Hope someone can help with these possibly stupid questions (I should really know the answers by now!):

1. Should any of the tax years not be suspended? I have 01/02 to 05/06 suspended, but 06/07 and 07/08 are not.

2. Should there be any interest payable at all?

I was hoping not to bother Natalie on Monday but may have to because I'm very confused.

Thanks in advance for any help!

This is my view.

1. No, all years should be suspended. Every year is being appealed.

2. There should be nothing at all to pay until the appeals process has run its course.

Sounds like another cockup to me.

If it wasn't for what was on the Donkey's coat (<----) you would think HMRC were doing this deliberately to keep MP snowed under.

[SantaClaus]

This is my view.

1. No, all years should be suspended. Every year is being appealed.

2. There should be nothing at all to pay until the appeals process has run its course.

Sounds like another cockup to me.

If it wasn't for what was on the Donkey's coat (<----) you would think HMRC were doing this deliberately to keep MP snowed under.

Thanks DR. I will probably have to get on to MP about it.
I must ring the revenue though and quiz them for a few hours to keep them busy
I may even call MrYouKnowWho TM Maybe we should all call him . I remember the newsletter gave his number as 0161 869 7540.

[BrilloPad]

That thread is from 2005 - is that when you joined?

I joined before that and there was no mention of Padmore.

HMRC didn't bother to mention it till BN66 either... go figure...

But that post was from April this year.

[StellaFan]

We are indeed a group of four dudes who used to work at, er, Barcap.

Did any of you play footy for BarCap?

[Emigre]

Just got a self assesment statement with interest to pay and trying really hard to fathom it out.

Hope someone can help with these possibly stupid questions (I should really know the answers by now!):

1. Should any of the tax years not be suspended? I have 01/02 to 05/06 suspended, but 06/07 and 07/08 are not.

2. Should there be any interest payable at all?

I was hoping not to bother Natalie on Monday but may have to because I'm very confused.

Thanks in advance for any help!

Did you get a CN for 06/07 yet? SAR for 06/07 went to HMRC in January 08. Hector has 12 months to challenge it which doesnt close for another couple of months. If no CN, then at this stage MP on your behalf will not have appealed it. 07/08 returns havent even been sent in yet so they cannot be challenged, CN'd, appealed etc.

I received CN for 06/07 which has been appealed by MP. Statement for 06/07 shows suspended.

As DR said, NO interest payable.