BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[Emigre]

re: SantaClaus:
"
Helen7, firstly I am convinced you are an Inland Revenue plant.
"

I think you could be bit harsh here.
To some degree, I agree with Helen7. I'm not too paranoid about them 'flagging' my case but surely all the requests are just going to tie up an administrator and what does it acheive apart from winding them up ?

Unless you feel there is a possibility of HMRC really holding some information on you other that the tax re-calculations, I don't see the point. Have I missed something here ?

It could just get us known as a bunch of busy-bodies, lets keep professional -challenge the retrospection - that's what I'm here for.

Firstly, we have all already been flagged. We are already as far up their profile list as we would want to be. They know who we are because our tax returns have told them as well as exactly what we legally did.

The purpose of a DPA is to determine what documents HMRC hold on each of us as individuals. The reasons for wanting to know this primarily relate to a piece of added insurance in the somewhat unlikely event that HMRC win the first round or two in the courts.

It will highlight exactly what HMRC knew about you and when they knew it. When did they open their investigations into each of your tax years? When did they advise you? In essence you are entitled to expect to receive a copy of all the documents that HMRC have on your file that could form the basis of a case against you by them. Having the knowledge could provide you with the opportunity to challenge them on certain years because they haven't followed due process within appropriate timeframes and so on. The response to one guy I know was that they have nothing on his file! This seems unlikely but I'm wondering why he is still claiming to be resident in the Uk.

HMRC are in a corner on S58 and their behaviour. We have recently had examples of HMRC apparently sending out backdated letters, legal threats, letters that have not been received by scheme members or Montpelier. If you receive a copy of your file now, in theory, any document not provided could potentially be made inadmissible in Court at a later date.

There is no doubt that HMRC are behaving like thugs and cheats. I don't know about you but I want to know where i stand just now having the knowledge that the rewriting of history may be limited to the legislation only and not my file.

[BolshieBastard]

re: SantaClaus:
"
Helen7, firstly I am convinced you are an Inland Revenue plant.
"

I think you could be bit harsh here.
To some degree, I agree with Helen7. I'm not too paranoid about them 'flagging' my case but surely all the requests are just going to tie up an administrator and what does it acheive apart from winding them up ?

Unless you feel there is a possibility of HMRC really holding some information on you other that the tax re-calculations, I don't see the point. Have I missed something here ?

It could just get us known as a bunch of busy-bodies, lets keep professional -challenge the retrospection - that's what I'm here for.

I used to work in the Civil Service many years ago and, had professional dealings with the DPA Unit at Longbenton.

I can tell you the staff dont consider DPA requests as 'winding them up.' In fact, the more requests equals justification for their jobs ie it keeps them employed.

I fail to understand how you can interpret making use of a piece of statutory legislation ie Freedom of Information \ DPA requests, could get us known as a 'bunch of busy bodies'!

[johnnyguitar]

I used to work in the Civil Service many years ago and, had professional dealings with the DPA Unit at Longbenton.

I can tell you the staff dont consider DPA requests as 'winding them up.' In fact, the more requests equals justification for their jobs ie it keeps them employed.

I fail to understand how you can interpret making use of a piece of statutory legislation ie Freedom of Information \ DPA requests, could get us known as a 'bunch of busy bodies'!

It's just that attitude of some that this should be used as mechanism to 'keep them busy', 'mare them work' - several posts have been of this tone and I'm afraid I don't agree with it.

I'm all for doing this if there is a feeling that it will help our case or could provide an audit trail which may help our defence - the previous post explains this well, and I understand it better now thank you.

[WavesAtPlay]

Firstly, we have all already been flagged. We are already as far up their profile list as we would want to be. They know who we are because our tax returns have told them as well as exactly what we legally did.

The purpose of a DPA is to determine what documents HMRC hold on each of us as individuals. The reasons for wanting to know this primarily relate to a piece of added insurance in the somewhat unlikely event that HMRC win the first round or two in the courts.

It will highlight exactly what HMRC knew about you and when they knew it. When did they open their investigations into each of your tax years? When did they advise you? In essence you are entitled to expect to receive a copy of all the documents that HMRC have on your file that could form the basis of a case against you by them. Having the knowledge could provide you with the opportunity to challenge them on certain years because they haven't followed due process within appropriate timeframes and so on. The response to one guy I know was that they have nothing on his file! This seems unlikely but I'm wondering why he is still claiming to be resident in the Uk.

HMRC are in a corner on S58 and their behaviour. We have recently had examples of HMRC apparently sending out backdated letters, legal threats, letters that have not been received by scheme members or Montpelier. If you receive a copy of your file now, in theory, any document not provided could potentially be made inadmissible in Court at a later date.

There is no doubt that HMRC are behaving like thugs and cheats. I don't know about you but I want to know where i stand just now having the knowledge that the rewriting of history may be limited to the legislation only and not my file.

Very well put. Let's be prepared and gather as much evidence as we can. It's not so far-fetched for the government to create a team to doctor / re-write files in the same way as in Orwell's 1984. If anyone is bothered about HMRC being snowed under, then they can wait a week or two to stagger the requests.

[BrilloPad]

Very well put. Let's be prepared and gather as much evidence as we can. It's not so far-fetched for the government to create a team to doctor / re-write files in the same way as in Orwell's 1984. If anyone is bothered about HMRC being snowed under, then they can wait a week or two to stagger the requests.

Yeah : I spend my nights worrying about HMRC being snowed under.........

[KiwiGuy]

Yeah : I spend my nights worrying about HMRC being snowed under.........

end of the day, ive put a request in because i want to know what the IR has on me, ive been through a IR35 audit, now this, they are allowed to waste our time with out consideration to the cost and stress it causes, so im happy to waste theirs although the information they provide to me will help me build up a file against them....

[SantaClaus]

Yeah : I spend my nights worrying about HMRC being snowed under.........

ROFL

I sleep really well thinking about it.

[SantaClaus]

end of the day, ive put a request in because i want to know what the IR has on me, ive been through a IR35 audit, now this, they are allowed to waste our time with out consideration to the cost and stress it causes, so im happy to waste theirs although the information they provide to me will help me build up a file against them....

Agree with you Kiwi.

However trivial sending in DPA requests may seem, it will remind them that we are a constant thorn in their side.

And as you say, something of interest may turn up in the file. This is what the author of the AccountingWeb article found:

http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/cgi-b...1019&id=182254

"What do you get? Well in my case just about everything - the pages were numbered so I could quickly detect any gaps. The information was excruciatingly embarrassing for HMRC with the investigating officer admitting that the case was not a big one and a senior officer saying that he wanted it closed down ASAP."

[HalfMonkey]

submitting a DPA

just to respond to Helen7 et al re: submitting a DPA. I did not do it to irritate HMRC or to add to their workload. I submitted it to find out what information they had recorded against my file. Firstly I'm interested to find out what they may have written on my file and secondly it could prove invaluable in the forthcoming legal fun.

I would advise everyone to do it, not out of spite but because any additional information could be vital.

[SantaClaus]

just to respond to Helen7 et al re: submitting a DPA. I did not do it to irritate HMRC or to add to their workload. I submitted it to find out what information they had recorded against my file. Firstly I'm interested to find out what they may have written on my file and secondly it could prove invaluable in the forthcoming legal fun.

I would advise everyone to do it, not out of spite but because any additional information could be vital.

Completely agree HalfMonkey,

There is absolutely nothing to lose by submitting a DPA, and who knows what it will unearth? Maybe nothing, but maybe something that could later be used in your favour in court.

It also provides a record of your file at this moment in time, so the Revenue cannot add anything that has been backdated and claim it was always there (pages should be numbered). If I had thought of this before, I would have done it a lot earlier. Then I wouldnt have received a "backdated" enquiry letter into a closed tax return.

Please don't listen to Helen, she is either a Revenue plant or very misguided.
Maybe she's the poor person who will be dealing with our requests