BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[MajorGowen]

JCHR and Discovery...

Hello,

Great result the other day.

I received my JCHR letter as DR said we would so more good news there.

Regarding Discovery - The first year I was in the scheme HMRC did not contest my tax return. The second year they did contest but sent to my old address so that year effectively went uncontested. My Closure Notices include both of these years and should in the unlikely event we lose the war then Montpelier have already said that we can contest these two years as they were effectively "signed off" by HMRC.

Cheers,
MajorGowen...

[NickNick]

http://mpsallowances.parliament.uk/m...ephen%2Dtimms/

Of course, there is no release of his "Additional Costs Allowance" which is where all the juicy stuff is. Just lots of £16.99 Rymans receipts.

Wonder why the additional costs are missing? They are there on the others I've looked at, including my own MP who claims 1500 a month in mortgage payments.

[NO TO RETRO]

Hello,

Great result the other day.

I received my JCHR letter as DR said we would so more good news there.

Regarding Discovery - The first year I was in the scheme HMRC did not contest my tax return. The second year they did contest but sent to my old address so that year effectively went uncontested. My Closure Notices include both of these years and should in the unlikely event we lose the war then Montpelier have already said that we can contest these two years as they were effectively "signed off" by HMRC.

Cheers,
MajorGowen...

Yep - If HMRC can contest our JR application on the basis of it being one day late...................
By the way, no-one has actually questioned that. I thought WG had said it wasn't late???
I know it's irrelevant now, just thought I'd ask.

[funjim]

Question re ctd and hello

Hi all have been reading with interest over the last few days while stumbling across u when looking for news on the jr ....so firstly thanks for all the great commentary

Secondly have a q re ctds ... What is the benefit of getting them? Do they offset anything owed in terms of interest and penalty ?

Or are they just like sticking cash on depo ?

Thanks and keep up the good work

Jim

[Emigre]

Yep - If HMRC can contest our JR application on the basis of it being one day late...................
By the way, no-one has actually questioned that. I thought WG had said it wasn't late???
I know it's irrelevant now, just thought I'd ask.

As far as the law is concerned it wasn't late. There was some debate in Court that it might be 1 day late but the judge accepted Elvins arguments that it was on time (House of Lord case authority provided) and even if the judge's understanding of that case was wrong he was minded to grant a one day extension. This effectively disallows any appeal on the grounds of timing.

[normalbloke]

Thxs ....there is no new discovery - everything on the returns so theyve no legs to stand on - even had it confirmed by an independent tax consultant .. have appealled so will see... will all come out in the wash when this thing reaches its conclusion!!

Hmm.. I've posted about this before. The 'discovery' card has been played on me with tax returns being opened after the due date. HMRC justified this by saying the information on the tax return concerning the trust income (ie the one liner about exemption under the DTT with the IOM) was NOT sufficient information for them to have been able to deduce that it was all above board. They quoted a case where deeper digging on a one-liner on some other poor b*ggers return revealed a whole host of potential liabilities. That gave them the justification and precedent (it went to the commissioners I think and was upheld). I'll dig out the letter they sent and quote their weasel words.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

HMRC justified this by saying the information on the tax return concerning the trust income (ie the one liner about exemption under the DTT with the IOM) was NOT sufficient information for them to have been able to deduce that it was all above board.

Let's look at the timings.

May 2001 - Family trusts notified to HMRC
Mid 2002 - HMRC start negotiations with Suo Motu
Jan 2003 - 2001/2 Montp tax returns filed
Mar 2003 - Suo Motu returns settled
Jan 2004 - 12 month deadline for opening enquiries on 2001/2 returns

How can they possibly claim that the information on any returns was insufficient when the majority of returns were queried within the time limit, and they had settled with Suo Motu 9 months earlier.

Talk about taking the piss.

[Toocan]

Of course, always has been. But the "inbuilt" retrospection to FA2004 (5?) may act as a barrier to take up of those schemes. [I am not trying to justify retrospection, though I think in terms of joining schemes post the announcement there is an arguable case for it; I would much prefer that the legislation was properly written in the first place and when it doesn't work as intended legislate against it and HMG simply accept that].

Make no mistake. HMRC will get the £200 million. They just won't get it from exisiting scheme users, they will get it from future scheme non users; those they firghten off.

Much is made, for example, of IR35 only bringing in a few million. Somewhat shy of the 600 odd million Timms et al stated in the RIA. Truth is though that nobody knows how much it brings in. Quaite a lot of folk simply accept it, pay themselves the money as salary and think "that gravy train was good while it lasted".

HMRC action is not so much about getting the pound of flesh, it's about discouraging people from risking going outside the box.

However, if we win this then it will have the opposite effect. Everyone will know that HMRC cannot go back and change the rules. The best thing HMRC can do now is to drop the case and accept that the tax planning was effective. If they take this to court, defend their positon, and lose - then it will cost them far more than £200 million in lost income. And there is nothing they can do to undo that failure - short of leaving the EU.

Talk about shooting themselves in the foot.

[BrilloPad]

Let's look at the timings.

May 2001 - Family trusts notified to HMRC
Mid 2002 - HMRC start negotiations with Suo Motu
Jan 2003 - 2001/2 Montp tax returns filed
Mar 2003 - Suo Motu returns settled
Jan 2004 - 12 month deadline for opening enquiries on 2001/2 returns

How can they possibly claim that the information on any returns was insufficient when the majority of returns were queried within the time limit, and they had settled with Suo Motu 9 months earlier.

Talk about taking the piss.

I agree with your avatar......

[SantaClaus]

However, if we win this then it will have the opposite effect. Everyone will know that HMRC cannot go back and change the rules. The best thing HMRC can do now is to drop the case and accept that the tax planning was effective. If they take this to court, defend their positon, and lose - then it will cost them far more than £200 million in lost income. And there is nothing they can do to undo that failure - short of leaving the EU.

Talk about shooting themselves in the foot.

I agree, there is a lot at stake here.

So much so, that I would bet on Mr YouKnowWho (TM) losing his job.

Now where's the nearest bookmakers?