BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[robinhood]

Closure Notice Query

On the closure notices I recieved I had the 'self assessement before my enquiry was that £nnn tax was due'.

The amount appealed obviously did not include this figure as this was the amount paid to HRMC for the year in question (though need to double check this is the case).

I now get a letter saying that the total figure (i.e the above amounts for 6 years) is payable now, so ignoring any amounts I've paid previously.

Does this HRMC figure contracdict what Montpelier was telling me I had to pay. Sorry at work so can't check my records at the mo, but just wanted to know whether anyone else had the same letter.
Thanks

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Yes I remember reading this...but this begs the question that if the judge who was presented the original application for a JR saw 'no such evidence', then why did he decline the application for a JR?...

yes this might be a standard process to weed out any weak cases from progressing and wasting valuable court time, but if one of the sides presents little or no evidence to support their case, then surely its a no-brainer to proceed to JR?

I would read it the other way round. If you allege something in an application but don't provide anything substantive to back it up, then there can't be much of a case to answer.

[Emigre]

I would read it the other way round. If you allege something in an application but don't provide anything substantive to back it up, then there can't be much of a case to answer.

This is the way I read it too although I can easily see why The GadgetMan might have seen it the other way.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

JR application process

This is the way I read it too although I can easily see why The GadgetMan might have seen it the other way.

GadgetMan is right in the sense that the test for granting permission for a JR is "low" but our case would look very weak without any evidence being presented.

http://www.adminlaw.org.uk/docs/Appl...ssion_2008.doc

4. The test for the grant of permission is a low one. Permission will be granted where the Claimant can show that there is an ‘arguable’ case. That is, if ‘there is a point fit for further investigation on a full inter partes basis with all such evidence as is necessary on the facts and all such argument as is necessary on the law’

5. What is an ‘arguable’ case? This is not just something that can be argued. It will be something which is not hopeless, frivolous or vexatious, but may have some merit.

6. For the Defendant, it is necessary, therefore, to strike the ‘knock-out blow’. Showing the Court the authority that totally defeats the Claimant’s case. Explaining the statutory framework that shows that it has no merit. Informing the Court of an alternative remedy that the Claimant should have pursued, or is pursuing.

[TheGadgetMan]

I would read it the other way round. If you allege something in an application but don't provide anything substantive to back it up, then there can't be much of a case to answer.

DR I read it the same as you...but perhaps I didn't express myself clearly...what I meant was that if HMRC put forward their case to the judge but didn't provide any clear evidence to support their case, then why did the judge decline the JR?...presumably MP's QC put forward our case with some pretty compelling evidence on our side...while it seems HMRC had little or none...

I don't profess to know how these things work, but if HMRC couldn't provide any evidence then it should have gone straight to JR...the fact that it didn't does make one wonder if the judge was perhaps leant on...I dont normally prescribe to conspiracy theories but...

[DonkeyRhubarb]

presumably MP's QC put forward our case with some pretty compelling evidence on our side

I think this was the problem. Our application didn't present sufficient evidence. Hence the reason it was refused.

The judge who received the written application said that he had no such evidence before him. The judge who hears the oral application will be presented with the evidence.

[TAF4]

Red letter day

Last night I received a letter from HMRC. It is predominantly red and entitled "Self Assessment: Final Demand". It is dated 16 February 2009. ie it took 17 days to arrive.

Me too. Exactly the same. Dated 16th and arrived yesterday. Final demand but no priors, and yes I did miss the 31Jan delivery date to pay.

[TAF4]

I think this was the problem. Our application didn't present sufficient evidence. Hence the reason it was refused.

The judge who received the written application said that he had no such evidence before him. The judge who hears the oral application will be presented with the evidence.

Sounds like refusal of the application was part of the MP game plan. Probably keeping their powder their dry whilst getting the marker down. Yay.

[Emigre]

Me too. Exactly the same. Dated 16th and arrived yesterday. Final demand but no priors, and yes I did miss the 31Jan delivery date to pay.

I have no intention of paying the surcharge. I have written to my tax office stating the facts and asking them to provide a proof of posting. Update in 28 days

[Toocan]

The trust income WILL be subject to NI on the same basis as the self employment income. This means that for most people the trust income will be taxed at 41% for those in the higher rate, not 40%.

Self employed NI is 8% not 41%.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/nic.htm

(note that the limits and upper rate have changed over the years).